The Dink Network

I was watching a show on national geographic and they were talking Does Gender have anything to do with evil?

What do you think?

No. Both are equally evil, only men are plain do-it-in-front-of-everybody evil; women are silently scheming, my-plan-is-coming-together evil.

I agree although you hear although those feminist extremist idiots saying men are all rapists and are selfish and cause nothing but war and deserve to be castrated which is stupid.

Define evil.

Evil is simply a concept attached to acts that displease the majority. Pred views sex and porn as evil, whereas many other people see it as a good thing.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter. What does matter to me is the preservation of life and the quality of life. Anything that goes against that (Such as murder or rape or molestation) would be deemed as 'evil'.

Pred views sex and porn as evil, whereas many other people see it as a good thing.
Who Does?

SimonK.

SimonK.
I dont so Its even shows in his D-mod called the Stone of Balance when Dink goes down to the dungeon and decides to do the ehhhh..... naughty
HE DIES

sex and porn are good things.

What does matter to me is the preservation of life and the quality of life. Anything that goes against that (Such as murder or rape or molestation) would be deemed as 'evil'.

With that criteria, the argument can be made that men are a lot more evil than women - 90% of total crime is committed by men, for violent crime the percentage is probably even higher than that.

Just throwing that (crass oversimplification) out there, maybe to foster some kind of intelligent conversation.

Porn is nrop.

Those are just the crimes that were reported. I don't trust statistics much, as they only use a small number to measure the large.

No0t to mention the media here can legally lie.

I don't trust statistics much, as they only use a small number to measure the large.

No, that's not right. Statistics are about turning a large amount of information into a smaller amount of information, with as little loss of interesting information as possible. That means that the results will depend on what you consider interesting.

What you describe (using statistics on little information and suggesting that it would have been the same if it was used on a larger data set) is a "sample"; if used properly, there's nothing wrong with that, and it is indeed very likely that the results are correct.

However, there are several problems. The obvious problem is that giving only the results of your statistics doesn't allow people to check if you did it right. It's very easy to do statistics wrong, and if you do, the results don't mean anything.

A more important thing is that some people intentionally do it wrong, for the purpose of "proving" something that they know isn't true. "There's lies, dang lies and statistics." Which brings us back to the subject: those people are evil, IMO. But unfortunately they don't seem to be rare.

the media here can legally lie.

They can do that anywhere. That's called "freedom of press". This only becomes a problem when they are not independent. Journalists should try to bring news and give people objective information about what's happening in the world. They should provide a platform for people to discuss the news. If they are actively pushing the public opinion one way or the other (by adding their own opinion too much, or by selectively publishing reader's letters), the people no longer know what is true or false. Then your country is in trouble.

And yes, I believe the US is very much in trouble in that respect.

Those are just the crimes that were reported. I don't trust statistics much, as they only use a small number to measure the large.

Are you implying that women secretly commit just as much crime as men, but they almost never get caught? That doesn't sound very believable... I don't think the data itself is by large untrustworthy, for a few reasons: 1) When it's gained directly from crime reports (and not a telephone survey or something, although those do serve their purpose of getting some kind of idea of the amount of unreported crime), and 2) there's a crapload of data on the subject from many countries, not just some anger cruise by a nasty feminist.

A more important thing is that some people intentionally do it wrong, for the purpose of "proving" something that they know isn't true. "There's lies, dang lies and statistics."

That's a good phrase. Even if the data is right, statistics can be perverted to support some pretty absurd claims - such as that you and I have more legs than the average person. Or, of course, that men are several times more evil than women.

the argument can be made that men are a lot more evil than women - 90% of total crime is committed by men, for violent crime the percentage is probably even higher than that.

Nup we are just smarter therefore dont get caught As DD says, we are sneakier therefore we slide in and out under the radar... maybe??

@punisher - why do u care about castration if u dont wanna use said appendage for the purpose it was created for?? cut eet off i say

Are you implying that women secretly commit just as much crime as men, but they almost never get caught?

While I wouldn't say that's true, women do tend to get away with crimes much easier than men.

why do u care about castration if u dont wanna use said appendage for the purpose it was created for?? cut eet off i say


Becasue it will hurt

Becasue it will hurt

You just went full retard.

You just went full retard.
You were always a retard

Neither gender is inherently evil.

However, Males are more prepositioned to be excessively violent, aggressive and sexual due to testosterone levels.

Of course, this is neither inherent nor absolute. Furthermore, evil doesn't really exist - simply some things/ creatures (eg. people) are more destructive and self-centred then others.

Ed: Social expectations are for males to be more aggro, powerful and emotionless. These social norms are stone-age grade and must be revamped.

Ok, how do you think castration is performed on a male human being then? You should definitely consider it regarding how much you hate sex and porn etc. and will never get laid.

You should definitely consider it regarding how much you hate sex and porn etc. and will never get laid.
No because i can control myself.

I doubt that a little

Just because someone doesn't think sex is right doesn't mean they would want their body to be chopped up.

Trust me, it would be for the greater good in this case.

Let the man keep his rod. It's not like he has anything else left. Except his virginity.

Just because someone doesn't think sex is right doesn't mean they would want their body to be chopped up.

Good answer

Ok so... does upbringing come into this I do know that if a kid witnesses violence in the home growing up - that their brains develop differently, so are we creating a world of next generation monsters cause parents cant keep their hands off each other (and not in a good way lol) I do mean both genders here - men just dont report women belting them the same as women do to men - it still happens. A lot!

And yes, I believe the US is very much in trouble in that respect.

How so? It seems like we have tons of news sources and even more places to talk about it. Plus we have a fairly large element of suspicion in our culture that makes people want to find out what's really going on that "they" aren't telling us.

In regard to the thing KrisKnox originally said, he never said crime was the only thing the reduces the quality or likelihood of preservation of life, he just used them as examples. Just watching the psychological warfare teenage girls use at their schools aught to amply prove that there are ways of doing so legally.

Just because someone doesn't think sex is right doesn't mean they would want their body to be chopped up.

Also, having a rod has other advantages besides having fun in bed. Especially the ability to take a pee while standing.

Also, having a rod has other advantages besides having fun in bed.
Fun? What! isnt doing the naughty suppose to be painful? How is being in Pain fun?

Let the man keep his rod. It's not like he has anything else left. Except his virginity.

I hate say this but you are right Skull(Pitty laugh)(Sigh)...............

Fun? What! isnt doing the naughty suppose to be painful? How is being in Pain fun?

Oh God...

Once the frenulum severs, masturbating should no longer be painful. Of course there are certain conditions such as balanitis which override this statement, but should be uncommon in average first and second-world males of your age.

@Skull
Dont bring up my little pony crap
Ive checked your youtube page and one of your video is about that pony show you do know its for little girls.

Fun?

You should stop dating a grater...

You should stop dating a grater..
What?! you mean like a cheese grater what the hell are you talking about?

Fun? What! isnt doing the naughty suppose to be painful? How is being in Pain fun?

Someone shoot this imbecile, I can't take it anymore.

Someone shoot this imbecile, I can't take it anymore.

What an idiot you are.

Are you 16 years or older and have never masturbated? Not even once?

Well isn't that a big fat troll indeed.

Are you 16 years or older and have never masturbated? Not even once?
Why the hell do you what to know that?

Because I now feel reaaaally sorry for you honestly. Promise me you'll do something about it asap.

Because I now feel reaaaally sorry for you honestly. Promise me you'll do something about it asap.

Why i thought you have always hated me?

The situation has changed after those last posts. I can see now why everyone here turns up on the Enemy List of yours.

You have never experienced it, I see now that's where the problem is and I know just the thing to make you better at life.

You have never experienced it, I see now that's where the problem is and I know just the thing to make you better at life.

Expreinced what?

I actually have and its hurts trust me you are better off not doing it.

Oh well, it really really REALLY must suck to be you then.

Oh well, it really really REALLY must suck to be you then

Why so just recently you felt sorry for me why?

Becuase I thought you've never experienced a fap. It won't hurt come on, try doing it again. It's a natural sexual behaviour and it is healthy for men to do it.

It won't hurt come on, try doing it again. It's a natural sxual behaviour and it is healthy for men to do it.
Im not falling for that again i dont want to injure myself again.

Im not falling for that again i dont want to injure myself again.

Two things.

1: You actually did it once for believing in that argument?
2: You hurt yourself doing it?

You hurt yourself doing it?
Yes i did i recommend that you never do it

Ive checked your youtube page and one of your video is about that pony show you do know its for little girls.

So according to you, you haven't gotten laid, but a guy who watches a "show for little girls", has. AND by a girl who knows he watches a "show for little girls", while you haven't got laid by anyone. Apparently a guy who watches little girl stuff, is also much tougher than you, because he can actually fap without getting injured.

Seriously, with that statement, you're just making yourself look even more pathetic.

I think this got slightly off topic.

I think this got slightly off topic.

I don't think that matters since the topic was stupid anyway. Besides, ThePunisher doesn't start a topic to discuss about a certain point, but to argue with whatever the conversation gets led to.

Did you like get a scar from doing it? Do you have a fapping battle wound?

I actually think more men watch MLP than little girls.

ThePunisher doesn't start a topic to discuss about a certain point, but to argue with whatever the conversation gets led to

Why don't you just ignore this guy ?
You shouldn't feed the trolls, you know.

Pred, if it hurts while doing it, then you're pulling too hard. Do not grasp, but gently fondle, like petting a kitty. Pet the kitty, do not rub the kitty, and the kitty will make you happy.

(Note: I am not writing about actually petting a cat, nor do I suggest you fondle your cat. Because that is weird.)

Maybe there is a tutorial on the internet.

(Note: I am not writing about actually petting a cat, nor do I suggest you fondle your cat. Because that is weird.)

Wait, so I've been doing it wrong for all these years? Dang!

How old is Pred anyway, and why is there now a description on how to fondle a cat, on our site/battlegrounds/world?

I think Pred is 19.

AND HE NEVER MASTURBATED!;( , he is a human guy right, or is he highly reli....nope hes apart of the Dn and the DDC allows fapping.

So according to you, you haven't gotten laid, but a guy who watches a "show for little girls", has. AND by a girl who knows he watches a "show for little girls", while you haven't got laid by anyone. Apparently a guy who watches little girl stuff, is also much tougher than you, because he can actually fap without getting injured.

Bullcrap you aint tougher then anybody and no you have not gotten i hate to say this word "Laid" (SHIVERS)
Pred, if it hurts while doing it, then you're pulling too hard. Do not grasp, but gently fondle, like petting a kitty. Pet the kitty, do not rub the kitty, and the kitty will make you happy.

Yep tried that many years ago and it just hurts so thats why i recommend you all to stop doing it.

Pred, chances are you tugged too hard and it traumatized you. I think I speak for everyone else but you who has played with their kitty that it doesn't hurt for us.

Pred, chances are you tugged too hard and it traumatized you. I think I speak for everyone else but you who has played with their kitty that it doesn't hurt for us.

Nope

Are you denying that you tugged too hard, or are you denying that I and everyone else thinks it doesn't hurt?

Oh my GOD.... this thread moved so fast... it's hilarious!

Yep tried that many years ago and it just hurts so thats why i recommend you all to stop doing it.

What were you? Five? I can understand if it hurt back then, but during your teenage years? Either you have some serious... issue down there, or you're the biggest wimp I've ever seen.

Meh.

I second that comment

I vote that the staff don't close this topic since it's to funny, and Kris why are you still using a kitten as your target, maybe a banana might be a better host for your answer.

Because, Dack, kitties are made for stroking, bananas are for splitting. I don't think people want their bananas to split.

Aaaand the image is back.

you split banana peels, not bananas, you eat them or weirdos might put condoms on them.

And yet again you miss the point. Which is somehow more irritating than Pred missing the point.

What were you? Five? I can understand if it hurt back then, but during your teenage years? Either you have some serious... issue down there, or you're the biggest wimp I've ever seen.

Nope 13 or 14

Dude, go to the doctor and get yourself checked. If it hurts and you were that age, then you might have some sort of physical problem.

Else, you tugged too hard and/or are a wimp.

Was everything still in working order after that?

How old are you now, Predator?

I bet 5 cookies on 17.

I'll take you bet and raise fifteen on eighteen. Whomever is closer gets the cookies.

He's 19. And autistic.

That is, if he's telling the truth.

No one wins the bet until Pred tells us himself, I don't need any bribing here.

Well well, not reading the thread a few days gave me a longer time to catch up than I expected... I'm just going to answer Dinkulum's question anyway.

How so? It seems like we have tons of news sources and even more places to talk about it. Plus we have a fairly large element of suspicion in our culture that makes people want to find out what's really going on that "they" aren't telling us.

I really should do some research on this, because it's mostly what I've heard, and I'm not trying to really follow the news from "inside" even though I live here now. But here's what my feeling about it is:

There are many news sources, but the major ones are all owned by big companies, who have major interests in what the public thinks. They can use sneaky methods to let most people not talk about important things, or to blow up myths to a proportion where reasonable people will start to doubt if they are true. I can't find a proper reference at the moment, but I remember for example that a recent presidential election (I think Bush/Kerry, but I may remember wrong) was pretty much "decided" by Fox News simply calling the winner. Of course such a thing wouldn't have been possible without a very close result, but it's still very doubtful.

But there are more subtle things. I heard (again, I have not actually researched it myself) that some news show includes scripted political dialogs where the liberal participant always loses, for comical relief. This may be funny, but it's also a great way for pushing the news channel's anti-liberal viewpoints without looking like a marketing machine.

Good journalism requires journalists to be independent, try to cover all major sides of a story, giving proponents of those sides room to explain their case, and keep discussion focused on what's most important for the public to know. Most importantly, they must do research to find out what's really happening, and present that research to give people arguments for their case. There are obviously choices to be made while doing all that, and not all of them can be objective. These choices must be made with their mission (bringing news to the people) in mind, and personal interests must play no role. You can't expect this to be the case if a big company which does more than journalism is paying your salary.

So let me just comment shortly on what this means for what you mention:
- tons of news sources: yes, but somehow none of the independent ones are of any importance. This probably has to do with the amount of money the big companies can devote to it.
- tons of places to talk about it: yes, but the discussions are not (only) fueled by facts researched by good journalists, but by lobbyists, leading to people mostly discussing meaningless stuff.
- lots of suspicion: yes, but this is mostly abused by people making up hoaxes about lots of things, thereby making actual problems look like just another hoax.

I can't stress enough that I haven't checked if any of the above is true, it is just the view of a Dutch guy who heard it from people who visited here. I am also visiting here now, but I feel I don't get enough contact with the local news to confirm or falsify it. I don't have a TV; that may be a reason for that.

Aint this got deep and meaningful... being serious here - maybe a circumcision is on the books if it hurt - means somethings wrong and needs attention. Promise ya pred it shouldnt hurt.

I saw you all cringe at that

Dang glad my nibblie bits arent up for discussion here hahaa.. ewe guise GEESH

I didn't totally read the whole thing, but mainly the bullet points, one personal question arrives from the third bullet, is Sasquatch a hoax.

*The topic flies over dack's head going 'nnnNNNEEEEOOOOWWWwww...'*

that makes me think of peanut from the Jeff-fa-fa show.

That's what I... Nevermind.

Re: Shevek's reply.

Mkay. Well, I won't dispute any of that. There is a lot of bias and distortion that goes on, from what I've heard. In general the news is half seen as entertainment, at least when it comes to the commentary-style news shows. And people are entertained by having their own views bolstered. It happens on both sides of the political spectrum.

Now I have a question for KrisKnox.

Those are just the crimes that were reported. I don't trust statistics much, as they only use a small number to measure the large.

So what would you base your views on about how much violent crime men and women commit? Anecdotal evidence? Vague impressions?

In general the news is half seen as entertainment, at least when it comes to the commentary-style news shows. And people are entertained by having their own views bolstered.

Definitely. But that doesn't have much to do with journalism. In the Netherlands, I saw a documentary not so long ago about the abysmal way people in the mushroom-picking industry are treated. The reporter was shown to have a lot of trouble actually finding those workers, because the companies didn't cooperate, and when he finally found them, they told horrible stories (it's practically slave labor).

Such a documentary can have serious impact. There will be questions about it in the parliament, for example (and such questions may lead to sending the police over there). When a journalist does his work properly, there is no discussion about whether the presented information is true; journalists are trusted in principle, and if they are misbehaving, the offended party (in this case the company) can easily open up its doors and show that it's not true. I don't think I've ever seen that happen, though.

I really don't know if journalists here in the US do research, but if the news is only entertainment, they probably don't.

It happens on both sides of the political spectrum.

Certainly; I didn't mean to suggest that this was a one-party thing. However, most (if not all) good journalists in the Netherlands are a bit (or a lot) left-wing. I think this is because with their brains, they can get jobs which pay a lot better, but are less idealistic. If they were right-wing, they would have been more selfish, and they would have chosen the money.

But good journalists make it very clear when they are stating their opinion about the news, and when they are presenting facts as objectively as they can. So the fact that most good journalists are left-wing isn't a problem for the news quality.

I look at all of the evidence that I can, ranging from reported statistics to happenings in various locations.

1. if reporters reported fault, I think less people would watch it/them
2. Are the mushroom pickers really under slave labor?
3. OWLS.
4. Does anyone know how to kill a trapped spider.

In the Netherlands, I saw a documentary not so long ago about the abysmal way people in the mushroom-picking industry are treated.

We have investigative journalism here too. Here was a controversial example of it that I remember seeing on TV. But the Wikipedia article does note the same thing you did, that it has declined because of the growth of media conglomerates. This organization may interest you. I happened to find it while searching just now.

As far as other serious journalism goes, I'd say the New York Times and NPR tend to be respected news sources. I'm sure there are others, but those are what come to mind.

Dack, why would you want to kill a spider? Give them a smooch and let 'em go I say.

I'm surprised no one has pointed this out, but if sex is painful, and childbirth is painful, and children ruin lives, why does Humanity still exist? The reason is simply that sex isn't painful, it's fun. Evolution made sure of that.

Well have you heard of the Brotherhood of Nod

Have heard is vidoe gamae?!?111one111?

1. I hate spiders
2. No I haven't heard of it, please explain it.
4. There is no 5

what game?

Command and Conquer.

Then I Command someone to rob a bank for me and I command someone else to conquer some cookies from robj using as much money that was stolen.

try the DN bank it's rumored to have tons of bananas, but was robbed of its cookies by someone.

Someone doesn't steal cookies, though.

then who did?