Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(08-25-2015 10:17 AM)T-Mac Wrote: [ -> ] (08-25-2015 09:49 AM)mturn017 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-25-2015 09:42 AM)blunderbuss Wrote: [ -> ] (08-25-2015 09:38 AM)mturn017 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-25-2015 09:16 AM)EverRespect Wrote: [ -> ]I think to most people, the signs simply imply the kids were excited for good times and meeting new people. There are two types of people that are "offended". Unattractive women that won't get the opportunity to participate because the guys won't be interested and beta male orbiters that think feigning outrage will score them bonus points. You can see it right down to the profile pics on social media commentary. It is more a product of envy than real outrage. Now that they have been invited in, they won't stop until these kids are kicked out of school. Now Broderick has to decide if he is going to kick these kids out and eat the legal/settlement costs or if he is going to have his campus overrun by mobs of unattractive women donning facial piercings, asymmetrical hairdos dyed unnatural colors, hairy armpits, and tramp stamps. It is a lose-lose.
I'm really more offended by your objection to the people who are offended by the signs than I am of the signs or the ones offended by it. The students are just trying to have a good time and the people offended by the signs are trying to prevent campus sexual assault. What the ***** your role in all of this?
Lmfao. How does being offended by a sign prevent sexual assault?
Fat, ugly, tramp stamp, died hair, queer or orbiter. Which one?
Didn't say it did, I said they were trying. To me the people offended by their protests are just adding noise. There's a very real concern underlying all this and it's not in the form of a sign.
Signs don't rape people, and people that make signs very rarely rape people. Rapist don't advertise their unwanted advancements.
I don't disagree with you and don't think these kids should be treated as rapists but men who don't respect women do rape people and that's the reason signs like these are attacked.
If we're going to be the PC Police, and we're not going to discriminate, the same punishment should be handed out to girls that "sexually harass" boys that boys get for "sexually harassing" girls.
We have reached a point where most civil discussion on this topic has ended. That is unfortunate, as it is an important topic where I personally think multiple valid opinions can be defended. Moved to Off-Topic, and this post serves as my only warning for the personal attacks already posted in this thread. I have unapproved some posts, but you guys need to control your emotions (and baiting), if you choose to participate further. Warnings and forum bans are always an option, but please don't make Cr8n, Alum, or myself have to use them......let's show a little more restraint and respect than these boys did when debating this topic. Oh, and one more thing, visitors to this board are always welcomed, but your leash is always shorter when actions need to be taken.
(08-25-2015 10:41 AM)T-Mac Wrote: [ -> ] (08-25-2015 10:35 AM)mturn017 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-25-2015 10:25 AM)T-Mac Wrote: [ -> ]"Social Justice" is not real. It's a ruse to discriminate against whites, men, people who aren't poor, and people who are sane. If social justice were a real thing then the women's sign would be trending, too. It was FAR more offensive. We're only worried about this sign because it was made by men. According to "social justice" no minority group can do anything wrong. That's not a movement. That's discrimination.
I disagree the women's sign, although more crude, was playful and not offensive. If anybody ever said to my face "I hope your baby girl is ready" referring to my daughter we're going to have a problem. That's disrespectful. The OSU's guys sign that said "We'll take it from here, Dad" I'd probably laugh off.
If you, in fact, would be more offended by an older man saying he'd like to have sex with your daughter than an older woman saying she'd like to sex with your son, then you are actually very sexist. You can't hold that belief AND still think that both sexes are equal and deserving of equal treatment.
So why do you say the ladies sign is more offensive?
First, the girls sign made the same insinuation that they'd have sex with younger boys. Second, it was much more graphic--referring directly and indiscreetly to butt sex.
(08-25-2015 10:48 AM)T-Mac Wrote: [ -> ]First, the girls sign made the same insinuation that they'd have sex with younger boys. Second, it was much more graphic--referring directly and indiscreetly to butt sex.
Well, I don't have a son but I do have a daughter so maybe I'm biased. But in general it was the wording of the sign on the far left that I found most offensive. Some of the others, meh.
(08-25-2015 10:48 AM)T-Mac Wrote: [ -> ]First, the girls sign made the same insinuation that they'd have sex with younger boys. Second, it was much more graphic--referring directly and indiscreetly to butt sex.
It was also more explicitly sexual talking about pulling out instead of just hope your baby girl is ready for a good time. But again they are girls so they get a pass.
(08-25-2015 10:58 AM)mturn017 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-25-2015 10:48 AM)T-Mac Wrote: [ -> ]First, the girls sign made the same insinuation that they'd have sex with younger boys. Second, it was much more graphic--referring directly and indiscreetly to butt sex.
Well, I don't have a son but I do have a daughter so maybe I'm biased. But in general it was the wording of the sign on the far left that I found most offensive. Some of the others, meh.
I have one of each. I can assure you that my wife would take as much offense to the women's sign as it pertains to our son as I would take to the men's sign as it pertains to our daughter.
(08-25-2015 11:13 AM)T-Mac Wrote: [ -> ] (08-25-2015 10:58 AM)mturn017 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-25-2015 10:48 AM)T-Mac Wrote: [ -> ]First, the girls sign made the same insinuation that they'd have sex with younger boys. Second, it was much more graphic--referring directly and indiscreetly to butt sex.
Well, I don't have a son but I do have a daughter so maybe I'm biased. But in general it was the wording of the sign on the far left that I found most offensive. Some of the others, meh.
I have one of each. I can assure you that my wife would take as much offense to the women's sign as it pertains to our son as I would take to the men's sign as it pertains to our daughter.
I don't doubt it and won't deny that there are double standards at play.
(08-25-2015 08:20 AM)odu83alumni Wrote: [ -> ]No joke Sigma Nu fraternity has been suspended. Aim HI.
OK, here is where I may have a problem. Who suspended the fraternity? I don't know all the details, but from the outside looking in, it looks like certain individuals were involved. What does the whole fraternity have to do with this?
If this was done by members of the Chemistry Club, would you suspend the Club? Maybe the National Organization dropkicked the chapter, not sure. Anyone have the scoop?
(08-25-2015 05:17 PM)The Flagship Wrote: [ -> ] (08-25-2015 08:20 AM)odu83alumni Wrote: [ -> ]No joke Sigma Nu fraternity has been suspended. Aim HI.
OK, here is where I may have a problem. Who suspended the fraternity? I don't know all the details, but from the outside looking in, it looks like certain individuals were involved. What does the whole fraternity have to do with this?
If this was done by members of the Chemistry Club, would you suspend the Club? Maybe the National Organization dropkicked the chapter, not sure. Anyone have the scoop?
National chapter suspended them pending their investigation. They haven't pulled the charter. They'll just have restricted activity after the investigation. But as long as they do their part (get good grades, keep their noses clean, meet charitable standards of the chapter, etc), this should just be a bump in the road. But if they mess up, that charter will get pulled before those kids can blink. National offices of fraternities are operating as a business these days and anything that hurts the brand is gone.
(08-25-2015 10:15 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch...ource=SFFB
This article pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter. Bad taste to hang the signs, but they don't make specific references and even though we all know what they meant by them, we couldn't prove the intent through the statements alone.
And if a parent doesn't understand that the first year of college is a time for sexual awakening for lots of 18 year old girls, they've got their head in the sand and don't remember what it's like to be that age.
For context, I have two young daughters. You can either keep them locked in a cage until they are 30, or try to teach them how to be responsible and keep themselves as safe as possible as they go through life.
And stay away from frat boys.
(08-25-2015 07:02 PM)devyanks90 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-25-2015 05:17 PM)The Flagship Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe the National Organization dropkicked the chapter, not sure.
They did.
http://hamptonroads.com/2015/08/old-domi...1440278933
Thanks. That makes more sense that the national organization is behind the suspension, and not the school.
I wanted to post a screenshot from my iphone, but it was on BBC's TOP 5 worldwide news articles two days ago. ODU finally fire the shot heard around the world, it seems...
Political correctness is a very long slippery slope where at the end lies your freedom of speech...shot dead. the BBC really has no business poking their nose in our affairs, they should have quite enough wrong-doings to report on in their own country.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10