Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

"Knock out" teen shot breaking/entering


  • Please log in to reply
286 replies to this topic

#271 SZ James

SZ James

    herd it on routers

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,519 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 09:02 PM

you forgot to gtfo when you said you were going to

#272 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,057 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 09:14 PM

you forgot to gtfo when you said you were going to


typical progression of this type of thread includes at least one person saying something along the lines of "i'm done with this silliness" then proceeding to keep fuging posting their dumb poo while also accusing the other party of needing the last word

it's basically a plea to stop posting so that person can save face

#273 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,269 posts
  • LocationSC

Posted 26 February 2013 - 09:21 PM

Nah, you guys can keep posting as much as you want. No need to save face here seeing as I'm not the one who did exactly what I was predicted to do or desperately insulted someone and told them to get out B)

Feel free to have the last word, not that it'll make the posts you've done already look any better. But hey...

#274 SZ James

SZ James

    herd it on routers

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,519 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 09:37 PM

typical progression of this type of thread includes at least one person saying something along the lines of "i'm done with this silliness" then proceeding to keep fuging posting their dumb poo while also accusing the other party of needing the last word

it's basically a plea to stop posting so that person can save face

Nah, you guys can keep posting as much as you want. No need to save face here seeing as I'm not the one who did exactly what I was predicted to do or desperately insulted someone and told them to get out B)

Feel free to have the last word, not that it'll make the posts you've done already look any better. But hey...


uncanny...........

'I'm not the one who did exactly what I was predicted to do'

^ haha way2gud

#275 googoodan

googoodan

    Memberest

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,494 posts
  • LocationBayside

Posted 26 February 2013 - 10:00 PM

man I wish everyone would be online at once. We get a page or 2 of one side. Then a page or 2 of the other.

#276 Kurb

Kurb

    I hit it.

  • Administrators
  • 13,439 posts
  • LocationILM

Posted 26 February 2013 - 10:46 PM

dear lord if you're gonna leave then fuging leave already

no one gives a fug about you or your smiley spam or your appeal to moderation or your huge text walls about obscure assistant coaches that are never coming here


Actually his threads on such are very popular.
So you are incorrect.

#277 PhillyB

PhillyB

    hug it chug it football

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,139 posts
  • Locationthird spur east of the sun

Posted 26 February 2013 - 11:50 PM

jesus i stop posting actual stuff for half an hour and this happens

#278 Darth Biscuit

Darth Biscuit

    Dark Lord

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,732 posts
  • LocationWilmington, NC

Posted 27 February 2013 - 07:14 AM

jesus i stop posting actual stuff for half an hour and this happens


Enjoyed it while it lasted Philly...

Would like to hear your honest opinions on the questions you asked me... Would also like for you to ask Cantrell these questions but I think that we all see what responses we would receive.

#279 PhillyB

PhillyB

    hug it chug it football

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,139 posts
  • Locationthird spur east of the sun

Posted 27 February 2013 - 05:13 PM

Does it bleed in? I suppose. Should it? I don't think it has any bearing whatsoever in my opinions or should it in our discussions. It's the internet... I could go right now and search for dogs having sex with monkeys and have an image in 2 seconds...

I answered this earlier in this thread... I enjoy beautiful women. I don't deny it. Most of the guys on here do. Frankly the "boob inspector" thing is something that Saltman and I started in like 2008 just screwing around. Cantrell thinks I walk around irl ogling womens boobs like some kind of psycho... lol. Nothing could be further from the truth. Do I notice attractive women... uh, yes I do. What heterosexual male doesn't? Plus... I live in Wilmington... there's like 10 hot women for every guy in this town... they're literally everywhere. Am I respectful to women irl? Absolutely... don't believe it, ask boo. She knows me as well as anyone on this site.


No. If someone is posing for such a picture then it's not objectifying. That said, if you have pic's of some college hottie bending over to pic a pen she dropped in the library, well then you are likely objectifying her.


To a large extent I have to disagree with you guys, but it mainly appears to be a difference in understanding of terms and definitions.

I think it's important to separate objectification as enjoyment of the entity - that is, a fundamental, natural, holistic attraction to the essence of a woman - and the way that this attraction manifests itself in society. if the structure of the society we're examining this question in is by nature egalitarian - that is, everyone is equal - than it becomes much less of an issue. However we historically have seen major differences in terms of social hierarchies based on race and gender (gender being the obviously applicable one here.)

Let me use the Huddle to illustrate. Pretend the Huddle is society. Is it egalitarian? In a sense, yes - everyone has an equal opportunity to post. There are no written restrictions that prevent, say, a woman from posting as she pleases. However, there are unequal restrictions on content in the sense that the allowable visuals are determined according to male desires and attraction; it's laudable if you can post the most boob possible without showing that impermissible areola, but anything resembling some dude's johnson is repulsive and disallowed. I contend that this disparity in standards creates an environment where women are not likely to feel any more welcome than they might in a good ol' boys' gentleman's club that's egalitarian on the surface but is full of guys sitting around talking about squeezing titties and how fantastic the ass of the new secretary is.

I kind of wrote this in reverse... I meant to extrapolate all that from a discussion of what objectification is, but then I skipped that part. Honestly there's not much to be said... I don't think appreciation of the female form, in its strictest sense, is at all objectification. Where you delve into objectifying is when a woman is reduced to the sum of her physical parts; she is presented, part and parcel, as a piece of ass and a pair of knockers. She is an agent of sexual desires and little (if any) more. What we have to differentiate here is the difference between appreciating those specific aspects of womanhood and appreciating only them, and furthermore, the manner in which public expression of either one is so easily misinterpreted.

This to me is the crux of the issue at hand. I think it's why GS is convinced nc_biscuit hates women, and I think it's why nc_biscuit thinks GS is off his goddamn rocker. Neither is true. I'd wager nc_buscuit's appreciation of the female form is expressed in a one-dimensional manner that characterizes identifying aspects of online forums (eg avatars) that does not properly capture his overall view. I'd also wager that GS's rightful abhorrence of the social context from which objectification has been derived for centuries has made him far more cognizant of these things and embodies a growing trend towards pointing these things out when they are publicaly overt.

What I'm saying is that this issue is far more complex than the diametrically-opposed ideologies that the framework of this argument has indexed the two of you into. The complexities, the many facets of this structure must be understood holistically before either of you will get anywhere, and before the rest of us forced to sit here with ears plugged will learn anything from it. If I were to suggest any sort of a solution, it'd be that nc_biscuit be more aware of the impression posting tittie avatars makes on the casual observer and what is easily extrapolated from it in today's climate of awareness surrounding gender issues and that GS be aware of the differentiation between explicit representation of a single facet as an indicator of belief that it's the only facet and that same expression as part of a greater whole that's not implicitly communicated over single-dimensional interfaces.

#280 PhillyB

PhillyB

    hug it chug it football

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,139 posts
  • Locationthird spur east of the sun

Posted 27 February 2013 - 05:21 PM

Oh, the irony (again) :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

dear lord if you're gonna leave then fuging leave already

no one gives a fug about you or your smiley spam or your appeal to moderation or your huge text walls about obscure assistant coaches that are never coming here



both of you are being hulking dicks probably to make up for your small dicks. mr. scot your platitudes and milquetoast smilies aren't adding a goddamn thing to these discussions and no matter how many times you draw out anecdotes about generalized principles of how "those people" argue it's honestly doing nothing for the overall discourse.

...as evident by SZ's similarly unhinged response. really dude? i for one welcome the arcane assistant coach threads... they're one of the best things about this forum and the reason mr scot is arguable the most knowledgable poster in the panthers forum. disagree with scot all you want (i usually do in tinderbox threads) but why go all busch league esp. when that comment doesn't make any lucid sense to begin with? honestly you two dickslapping each other has been the most annoying part of a fundamentally annoying thread and makes nc_biscuit vs. GS look like a goddamn mensa conference

anyway im starting to sound like trucatzfan so im gonna stop posting

#281 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,057 posts

Posted 27 February 2013 - 06:19 PM

To a large extent I have to disagree with you guys, but it mainly appears to be a difference in understanding of terms and definitions.

I think it's important to separate objectification as enjoyment of the entity - that is, a fundamental, natural, holistic attraction to the essence of a woman - and the way that this attraction manifests itself in society. if the structure of the society we're examining this question in is by nature egalitarian - that is, everyone is equal - than it becomes much less of an issue. However we historically have seen major differences in terms of social hierarchies based on race and gender (gender being the obviously applicable one here.)

Let me use the Huddle to illustrate. Pretend the Huddle is society. Is it egalitarian? In a sense, yes - everyone has an equal opportunity to post. There are no written restrictions that prevent, say, a woman from posting as she pleases. However, there are unequal restrictions on content in the sense that the allowable visuals are determined according to male desires and attraction; it's laudable if you can post the most boob possible without showing that impermissible areola, but anything resembling some dude's johnson is repulsive and disallowed. I contend that this disparity in standards creates an environment where women are not likely to feel any more welcome than they might in a good ol' boys' gentleman's club that's egalitarian on the surface but is full of guys sitting around talking about squeezing titties and how fantastic the ass of the new secretary is.

I kind of wrote this in reverse... I meant to extrapolate all that from a discussion of what objectification is, but then I skipped that part. Honestly there's not much to be said... I don't think appreciation of the female form, in its strictest sense, is at all objectification. Where you delve into objectifying is when a woman is reduced to the sum of her physical parts; she is presented, part and parcel, as a piece of ass and a pair of knockers. She is an agent of sexual desires and little (if any) more. What we have to differentiate here is the difference between appreciating those specific aspects of womanhood and appreciating only them, and furthermore, the manner in which public expression of either one is so easily misinterpreted.

This to me is the crux of the issue at hand. I think it's why GS is convinced nc_biscuit hates women, and I think it's why nc_biscuit thinks GS is off his goddamn rocker. Neither is true. I'd wager nc_buscuit's appreciation of the female form is expressed in a one-dimensional manner that characterizes identifying aspects of online forums (eg avatars) that does not properly capture his overall view. I'd also wager that GS's rightful abhorrence of the social context from which objectification has been derived for centuries has made him far more cognizant of these things and embodies a growing trend towards pointing these things out when they are publicaly overt.

What I'm saying is that this issue is far more complex than the diametrically-opposed ideologies that the framework of this argument has indexed the two of you into. The complexities, the many facets of this structure must be understood holistically before either of you will get anywhere, and before the rest of us forced to sit here with ears plugged will learn anything from it. If I were to suggest any sort of a solution, it'd be that nc_biscuit be more aware of the impression posting tittie avatars makes on the casual observer and what is easily extrapolated from it in today's climate of awareness surrounding gender issues and that GS be aware of the differentiation between explicit representation of a single facet as an indicator of belief that it's the only facet and that same expression as part of a greater whole that's not implicitly communicated over single-dimensional interfaces.


the manner in which public expression of either one is so easily misinterpreted.


explain how i've misinterpreted his position when his response to the idea of topless beaches is "i liek tities so it's ok but some women aren't all that attractive to me so you have to take the good with the bad but overall i support them." my contention is that this is pure objectification, and that we do not need a reporter on the scene to ask ncbiscuit what his dick thinks whenever people argue for or against topless beaches. the same type of misogyny that causes people to oppose topless beaches does manifest itself on the other side of the debate, in this type of response. both are blatant examples of reducing women to their parts. justifying your support of a women's rights movement by commenting on how sexually gratifying it can be for you is p disgusting, any way you cut it.

attributing my overall disgust to his avatar is very disingenuous; there are plenty of people desperate to prove their heterosexuality through softcore avatars and signatures but you don't see me attacking them. why is that? they haven't actually said horrible things about women (that i've seen anyway)

#282 PhillyB

PhillyB

    hug it chug it football

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,139 posts
  • Locationthird spur east of the sun

Posted 27 February 2013 - 06:35 PM

explain how i've misinterpreted his position when his response to the idea of topless beaches is "i liek tities so it's ok but some women aren't all that attractive to me so you have to take the good with the bad but overall i support them."


in this case i'd argue you come from differing social paradigms regarding what is normative behavior and what is deviant behavior and what kind of social constraints should be in place to regulate one or the other. if your quote is verbatim and i'm reading it right it seems like he stated "what his dick thinks" (fresh titties are nicer than saggy old socks, probably a universal agreement) but that such an opinion should not have any bearing on social policy as such. if i'm interpreting this right i'm not sure what the issue is, unless you're getting on his case for even the instictive motive to objectify by indexing attractiveness, in which case i'd argue that you're arrogant as fug and not very honest because it's probably in your nature to do the same thing, and the only difference is that one of you admits that it's an instinctive factor and one refuses to admit it (since both of you seem to be saying that it shouldn't be an actual issue as far as manifest legislation.)

attributing my overall disgust to his avatar is very disingenuous; there are plenty of people desperate to prove their heterosexuality through softcore avatars and signatures but you don't see me attacking them. why is that? they haven't actually said horrible things about women (that i've seen anyway)


i'm not trying to attribute your disgust to the avatar, i was using that as an example of how the overall paradigm has manifested (rather than going through every single possible facet.)

also i challenge you to consider your temporal position in existance in relation to paradigmatic shifts generationally. it's chronocentric to assume that in two hundred years people won't laugh at gospodin shuttlesworth's assumed position as backwards and flawed when historians view the huddle as a primary document of the early 21st century. of course we can't operate on this realistically as it would almost entirely negate the importance of agency and effort of the individual in attempts to advance society, but it's worth considering a diachronic approach to the history of human opinion and our placement within it as it changes how one approachs another whose opinions are not similarly advanced.

#283 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,057 posts

Posted 27 February 2013 - 06:54 PM

if i'm interpreting this right i'm not sure what the issue is, unless you're getting on his case for even the instictive motive to objectify by indexing attractiveness, in which case i'd argue that you're arrogant as fug and not very honest because it's probably in your nature to do the same thing, and the only difference is that one of you admits that it's an instinctive factor and one refuses to admit it (since both of you seem to be saying that it shouldn't be an actual issue as far as manifest legislation.)


it's not about whether or not he's attracted to them. in fact that's the very point. it is a matter of equality and boiling it down to "my dick approves of their tities" completely misses the point, aside from being incredibly problematic on its own. if your only contribution to the subject is, as is often the case, "i liek tities," then you might as well just say "my dick takes precedence over my prejudices." the foundation of this movement is so much more important than the sexual gratification that one will receive from it; if your response is "tities!" then i'm left with no other impression than "that's all this motherfuger cares about." now if it turns out that he's actually 12 years old then i'll cut him some slack because that is a very juvenile way of looking at things but i'm guessing he's not actually younger than his listed age.

to me there's little difference between this and say, someone supporting desegregated beaches because "tities are tities and i liek tities the more tities the better!" it's substituting one oppressive social construct with another.

e:

it's chronocentric to assume that in two hundred years people won't laugh at gospodin shuttlesworth's assumed position as backwards and flawed when historians view the huddle as a primary document of the early 21st century.


yeah i suppose it's possible that society falls to the point that, two hundred years from now, some historian may write "who was this gospodin shuttlesworth? he didn't think that men's penises should have a say in matters of equality? what was he, some kind of woman? some kind of queen?" oh wait i've already heard those very same suggestions from nc_biscuit here and now! looks like i won't have to wait 200 years to have my views challenged by fuging creeps.

#284 Darth Biscuit

Darth Biscuit

    Dark Lord

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,732 posts
  • LocationWilmington, NC

Posted 27 February 2013 - 07:54 PM

Here's the real issue... Cantrell is just pissed at me. I've consistently called him out for various things and that's apparently a nono in Cantrell's worldview...

From the Topless thread...

My original post...

We've had this discussion several times in the lounge, but never in the tinderbox that I recall...

A couple of things... obviously the general american perception of nudity is skewed compared to pretty much the rest of the world, we're generally more prudish about such things... even with something as innocuous as a woman breast feeding her kids seems to cause an uproar. Women should have the right to go topless if they want to, I have no problem with it.

The only negative side with that for men that like women is that not all breasts, and in fact most of them, aren't the perky nice ones... so you gotta take the bad with the good.

I'm sure there are lots of women that would like to tan topless, but I'm curious as to how many women would like to be able to go topless in general... I know my wife hates going without a bra, as do a lot of women with medium and large breasts because they bounce and hurt them when they're trying to do things...




...oh and Cantrell, I've told you before man, it's ok if you don't like women's breasts... no one here is judging you.



Then a bunch of other posts from others going much deeper into the "boob" issue...

Exactly.....most of the women who would go topless are the ones that you don't really want to see topless.

I'm with biscuit on this one. I couldn't imagine going to Wal-Mart at 1:00am and the women being topless. There is a line that shouldn't be crossed sometimes.

what in the blue hell is going on in here....who starts an argument about tittays....fwiw...I share biscuits opinion...not sure what the other dude is talking about other than trolling...arguing about tittays....seriously.....

The problem is that most of the people who do go topless are girls that no one wants to see.

I really only want to see about 20% of the tits out there. Therefore I do not support this initiative.

Not wanting to see a flimsy set of flapjacks hanging on a broad does not make me a bad person.

seriously, no one wants to see old floppy tits.

i mean, i don't love floppy old tits but it's still better than a lot of things.



...but doesn't say anything to them... just keeps attacking me. Cantrell obviously just has issues with me personally.

Which is fine, whatever... I'm sure that will be denied but the evidence is there.

fwiw I will refrain in the future from comments such as the way I entered this thread. I read over what he said earlier, and I should not have entered the thread in the manner in which I did. It was a dick move and from now on, I will stick to discussion only... oh I'm still going to call Cantrell out where I see fit, but I shouldn't stoop to the level I did. There is a way to do that, and that's not the way.



phillyb I read your posts and I appreciate your response. I get what you're saying, but honestly I think there's more to it than that. From my point of view, I'm as real and as open as I can be on here. A lot of people know me personally irl either thru fb or having met them so I am as honest as I can be with my opinions. Those who know me know this... Cantrell on the other hand is totally anonymous and can say whatever whenever with no personal consequence at all... I think that's part of it.

The other part is that Cantrell, as I've shown repeatedly, has the penchant to latch on to one specific thing someone says (particularly me for some reason) and go crazy with it... completely ignoring both context and the entirety of content of what the person says. For instance in this thread, Mr Scot said that parents should teach their kids to not be victims... well, Cantrell automatically assumes that Mr Scot REALLY MEANS that parents are teaching their kids to BE VICTIMS now and he KNOWS WHAT MR SCOT REALLY MEANS... Cantrell has done this over and over again in this forum. That, on top of the fact that Cantrell's tone and demeanor are always, always negative and derogatory makes it downright impossible to have true discussion. Cantrell would rather blast out that we're all wrongheaded, racist, misogynistic pigs as loud as possible, instead of actually listening to varying viewpoints. There's really nowhere to go with that.

As I said before, when I extended an invitation to him to go out for a beer, it was a sincere effort on my part to get to the bottom of why Cantrell personally hates me... he took insult at it for some reason, and the reason I honestly think is that keeping that anonymity makes it much easier to "act out" on here and continue with the animosity.

As always, I look forward to continued discussion on any issue in this forum. Hopefully we can all, me included, continue to act like adults.

#285 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,057 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 12:06 AM

...but doesn't say anything to them... just keeps attacking me. Cantrell obviously just has issues with me personally.


you started the thread, then found yourself incapable of defending your objectification. you're correct that, personally, i think that you're a waste of oxygen; however, i'm not interested in discussing the intricacies of YOUR ideology with your lackeys

fwiw I will refrain in the future from comments such as the way I entered this thread. I read over what he said earlier, and I should not have entered the thread in the manner in which I did. It was a dick move and from now on, I will stick to discussion only... oh I'm still going to call Cantrell out where I see fit, but I shouldn't stoop to the level I did. There is a way to do that, and that's not the way.


good. if you'll recall, kurb told me that i am free to respond to personal attacks with personal attacks. don't expect me to show you any respect when you enter a thread with posts that are entirely limited to your dumb "lol do u evn read" bullshit

A lot of people know me personally irl either thru fb or having met them so I am as honest as I can be with my opinions.


i don't care. your opinions are generally poo.

For instance in this thread, Mr Scot said that parents should teach their kids to not be victims... well, Cantrell automatically assumes that Mr Scot REALLY MEANS that parents are teaching their kids to BE VICTIMS now and he KNOWS WHAT MR SCOT REALLY MEANS...


it is no one's responsibility to "teach people to not be victims" (what the fug does this even mean anyway? is this like that "she shouldn't have worn that dress" defense?) in fact, it's virtually impossible in MANY cases for an individual to avoid the systemic causes of victimization, regardless of whether or not a kid was told by his parents "now don't go out and be brutalized by the police" or "don't get turned down for that job because your name is 'too ethnic'."

shifting focus from the oppressor to the victim is textbook "victim blaming." pretending that there aren't real forces that keep people in poverty (which is disproportionately black for some reason hmmmm) is a tacit argument that people aren't really victims of a systemically classist and racist society, this of course being objectively wrong. it's almost as if neither of you know what victimization actually is! and for that reason you two could never actually understand what victim blaming is! and you should post stop posting about things that you absolutely refuse to understand!

Cantrell would rather blast out that we're all wrongheaded, racist, misogynistic pigs as loud as possible, instead of actually listening to varying viewpoints.


this is bullshit. i'll call you a moron in the process of taking apart your posts; i don't deny using insults, but don't pretend that i don't address your posts. furthermore, i take things like "that minor rape victim is just 'doing the victim thing'" as an insult itself, so try not to pretend that insults somehow aren't warranted when you vomit your misogynistic poo.

As I said before, when I extended an invitation to him to go out for a beer, it was a sincere effort on my part to get to the bottom of why Cantrell personally hates me... he took insult at it for some reason, and the reason I honestly think is that keeping that anonymity makes it much easier to "act out" on here and continue with the animosity.


i thought that the last time i addressed this you said that you understood but fug it let's do it again

first, i have no interest in meeting new republicans. i know enough as it is.
second, this forum is the home of the guy who lost his mind and starved his horses to death. as a general rule, i'm not very open to meeting people from the internet; particularly from here.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.