Tropes Vs Women 2 - Damsels In Distress Part Two : Circular Arguments Strike Back

This makes no sense because you're assuming I've not watched something; you're not my eyes and ears, and you're not in my head. As a result, you don't know what I have and haven't watched. This is a bad assumption on your part.

If you did watch it you wouldn't make such ignorant statements, so you can say I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. It seems my assumption is correct as you didn't actually correct me, just criticized my assumption, which was completely legitimate.

Your definition of "starting a discussion" is different from mine, then. There are more ways to start a discussion than YouTube comments, which is clearly obvious because the legitimate comments get overwhelmed by those that should never be seen (or said). You can discuss things elsewhere and utilise the video as a starting point.

Doesn't matter, by taking the ability for the community at all to their feelings about her opinion, through legitimate means like voting and statistics and such is just showing her lack of confidence in her own opinion. She has already been proven to be melodramatic.

What's a wasted effort is to call you out on your use of 'retarded.' If you can't vent your frustrations somewhere that's off of YouTube, you have a problem. It's your right to make baseless assumptions on a video; if you can't figure out how to talk about it elsewhere, you need to re-evaluate yourself. I've given you alternatives to the blackhole that is YouTube commenting, but you're willingly ignoring it.

Instead of skimming and embarrassing yourself, you should read my posts then take a moment to think about them. They aren't baseless, I have made these conclusions and explained how I have made these conclusions. I don't understand how you can entirely miss that, even ignore those points all together. But as you said, it's your right to attempt to make baseless criticism.

But you'll never be in her position, which is the problem. It's quite clear to me that you're not capable of putting yourself in someone else's situation. After this, I have no further reason to respond to anything else. Based on your presentation, I can assume that you need to learn skills regarding empathy.

...Again, it's you who's being baseless. I take online harassment all the time, although mine isn't as amplified as her's, but the comments are no different than playing a regular game of CoD, honestly. That's why it's so sad, because thousands of people a day verbally get insulted like that. For f`uck sake I get worse from my day to day job. "tits or gtfo" is like meme standard, yet she tried to use that to milk sympathy? This isn't an empathy problem, it's a hypocritical problem on her end.

I'm from the United States, smart one. I live in Australia.

Sorry, again, benefit of the doubt considering it's really hard to f`uck up a definition when google is right there.

I never said rape only occurs to women, I said it was violence against women (when used against women, so maybe I should've clarified that further so you couldn't try to use it against me). Thanks for nitpicking while not having your facts straight, though.

...I marked it as BY THE WAY because it wasn't part of my general argument nor was put towards me. And also;

(Rape, by the way, is defined as violence against women.)

How the f`uck do you read that any other way than wrong. It literally states that it's DEFINED, as in the definition is violence against women. I don't attack people over petty things, but that was just wrong, so wrong that I had to bring up. And facts? Sit down and stop trying to say face. This is ridiculous, you're trying to sit here and tell me that I was missing some context when your statement is typed as a "Truth"?

But, if you read legislation history, it wasn't until recently that laws included men in rape cases. According to law, men could not be raped. As a result, rape was typically defined (particularly among society but definitely in law) as only occurring to women. So perhaps you might want to do some research of your own regarding the history of legislation against rape before you try to unnecessarily correct me regarding something I didn't really say.

Research huh? I can't believe you're a teacher. It's cute how you looked up a wiki page link and said "Oh I got him now!". The FBI recently changed it. By your logic there would be no male rape cases. Also to correct you further, it's not women on man that is considered "rape" but male on male. Then again a quick search will yield results of people prosecuted for raping males.

And didn't really say? Read your goddamn quote, there's no other way to interpret that, outside being unable to process simple sentence comprehension. How about we don't make such stupid mistakes, rather than complain about people correcting you over them.