Banned from NiceGuy.com

[fschmidt]

I rarely post to the niceguy MGTOW forum these days but I do read it just in case I spot someone sane there. I just went there and discovered that I am banned, meaning that I can't even read the forum. I got no explanation, no warning, nothing. Very typically American, and typical of MGTOW, meaning complete asshole behavior.

This is what happened. There was a thread on Islam, a topic that interests me enough that I posted to the thread. I asked some questions and I responded to a post, all related to Islam. One of the many regular posters who hates me there decided to attack me on that thread. The attack had nothing at all to do with Islam or anything else in the thread, it was simply a personal attack. In the attack, he referred to a post that I made 6 years ago on the forum. That post was controversial and I would never make a post like that now because I know that people these days are too stupid and closed-minded to understand it. Anyway, I think I was banned for the post I made 6 years ago. The irony is that 6 years ago, on the very same forum, there was a civilized discussion of that very same post. This shows how dramatically things are changing. Just 6 years ago, MGTOW were okay. Today they are universally assholes. There is literally no corner of modern culture where people aren't assholes. It is clearly time for me to leave modern culture.

Looking at the niceguy homepage, I see that there is a post that I have been banned. Of course I can't read it. It's here:

http://www.the-niceguy.com/forum/index. ... opic=58480

If anyone on this forum can access this, I would like to see a copy of it.

[zboy1]

I frequent numerous forums (but don't post). I've noticed a drastic decline in the quality of many of the forums lately; either they're become too over-moderated like Roosh and Niceguy, trashy like the Pick-up-artist-forum, or just plain boring and repetitive like PUA hate, Antimisandry, and Love-Shy. I think the MRA movement in the West is on its last legs, unfortunately. Too much arguing and complaining, not enough action imo.

[abcdavid01]

Chaps, I'm afraid fschmidt has been shown the door. For some time now, his posts have been becoming more and more extreme in their nature. A number of members have brought up this concern to myself privately and independently, and I have, up until this point, advised patience. However, I'm afraid the line has been crossed. After reporting a post in which coldfire called him out for claiming that "the rape of most American women is justified because there is no other legal means for many men to get sex in America", I do not believe he is able to constructively contribute to this board. As coldfire pointed out, he does not believe in ex post facto punishments, and neither is this a policy of this forum, however, by choosing to report coldfire's post to the moderators, fschmidt has, I believe, attempted to use authority against a legitimate challenge to views which he holds. Combined with those particular views, such action represents a threat to the integrity of the board.

As you all know, we try to give members as much freedom of expression here as possible, with the minor requests that no minor pornography is posted and that violence is not expressly advocated. However, we have been through this kind of brinkmanship with MikeeUSA years ago, which culminated in a thread about how it should be perfectly OK to rape your 12 year old wife. This time, we will not be travelling that path. Thank you all for your attention.

[abcdavid01]

From Phloridian a.k.a. Contrarian Expatriate:

All we need is the femosphere or the press to selectively broadcast post like that to undermine the entire men's movement, not just this site.

He can easily re-register under a new name, but the precedent is set, any advocacy of violence or illegality does us all a disservice. We can agitate, complain, and even promote civil disorder, but violence over the line.

Thanks to the posters that tipped off the mods on this.

JBH

Nightstorm:

Yeah, thats a line crosser alright. It would be akin to say, its okay to rob banks because poor people don't have enough money. I honestly don't know why he stayed around as long as he did, because I remember a convo with him way back, maybe a year ago possibly, and he seemed like he didn't like MGTOW's.

But why hang around people who you don't like? Beats me.

[abcdavid01]

http://www.the-niceguy.com/forum/index. ... 8312&st=60

Coldfire -

Let's take a look at fschmidt's claimed superior morality for a moment, bold text emphasis mine:

The rape of most American women is justified because there is no other legal means for many men to get sex in America. This is similar to the reason that I feel Robin Hood was justified in stealing from the rich. In England at the time, there was no social mobility, and the poor had no other way of getting enough money other than to steal. What is normally a crime becomes justified when alternative means of meeting a person's basic needs are denied.

But saying rape is justified is a weaker statement than saying American women deserve to be raped, so let me explain this. Is a starving person justified in stealing from a rich person? I think so. Does the rich person deserve to be stolen from? Not if the starving person's condition isn't the rich person's fault. In fact, in this case, the rich person would be justified in defending his property from the starving person. Here we have two people in conflict, each of whom is justified in his actions, and neither of whom deserves this conflict. But now let's look at the case where the starving person is starving because of actions by the rich person. In this case, not only is the starving person justified in stealing from the rich person, but the rich person deserves to be stolen from. This is why Robin Hood is remembered as a hero, because not only did he provide for the poor who were in need, but he also stole from the rich who were the cause of the poor people's poverty, and therefore who deserved to be stolen from.

My argument regarding rape is the same, just applied to sex as opposed to wealth. An American woman who dresses provocatively and opposes legal prostitution is a cause of sexual starvation among single men in America, and therefore, not only is her rape justified, but she deserves to be raped.

He also has this to say about male victims of rape, again bold text emphasis mine:

Compare this to the rape of a man. If one thinks of a woman raping a man, it is almost comical because it is so meaningless. It is meaningless because it has no evolutionary impact, or may even have a slight positive impact for the man. Women can only have a limited number of children, so they must be selective in sex. Men can have an unlimited number of children, so men have no need to be selective in sex. A feminist may raise the issue of a man raping a man. But this is simply assault and nothing more. So the point is that rape is a crime against women, not men.

http://www.the-niceguy.com/forum/index. ... opic=28652

Coldfire -

At the time I posted that copypasta I wasn't aware that fschmidt had already posted that here and been told by a mod that it would be tolerated as long as it remained on a purely theoretical level. I'm obviously no fan of fschmidt and won't miss him but there's something troubling about someone being told "this is ok, although we strongly disagree with you" and then being banned for it at a later date.

[fschmidt]

Thanks abcdavid01, so my guess was right. The post referred to was 6 years old and I haven't mentioned the topic since. The "legitimate challenge to views which he holds" made by coldfire was made in a thread about Islam, as I mentioned, and had nothing to do with the thread. I reported the post because it was off topic and was a personal attack. The moderators of the niceguy forum are just typical modern scum. If anyone has any questions about this incident, I will try to answer them.

[Cornfed]

So it seems that they have become a bunch of manginas promoting feminism then. The real question is whether their condition results from deliberate infiltration by the scum or whether they are just stupid assholes.

[Cornfed]

The rape of most American women is justified because there is no other legal means for many men to get sex in America. This is similar to the reason that I feel Robin Hood was justified in stealing from the rich. In England at the time, there was no social mobility, and the poor had no other way of getting enough money other than to steal. What is normally a crime becomes justified when alternative means of meeting a person's basic needs are denied.

But saying rape is justified is a weaker statement than saying American women deserve to be raped, so let me explain this. Is a starving person justified in stealing from a rich person? I think so. Does the rich person deserve to be stolen from? Not if the starving person's condition isn't the rich person's fault. In fact, in this case, the rich person would be justified in defending his property from the starving person. Here we have two people in conflict, each of whom is justified in his actions, and neither of whom deserves this conflict. But now let's look at the case where the starving person is starving because of actions by the rich person. In this case, not only is the starving person justified in stealing from the rich person, but the rich person deserves to be stolen from. This is why Robin Hood is remembered as a hero, because not only did he provide for the poor who were in need, but he also stole from the rich who were the cause of the poor people's poverty, and therefore who deserved to be stolen from.

My argument regarding rape is the same, just applied to sex as opposed to wealth. An American woman who dresses provocatively and opposes legal p4p is a cause of sexual starvation among single men in America, and therefore, not only is her rape justified, but she deserves to be raped.

Quite right. I would go further and say that since most Western women are just stray roaming whores not under the control of any husband or father, "raping" them is just like picking up shells on the beach as they are a free resource, the use of which produces no aggrieved party. Furthermore, the idea that policy should be based on their claimed mindless whims, which of course constitutes a form of spectral evidence, is insane.

[Intolerant]

Well, these nice guys do pride on being such manginas... To be quite honest, they aren't as 'nice' as they claim. They are assholes just like the typical American women and 'alpha males'.

[clowny]

Some of you guys have clearly become disconnected from reality, suggesting that it should be perfectly fine to rape women. Would it be okay if your wife, your mother or your sister was raped by some dude who thought just like you?

Although, I would offer the following point: males in america are routinely subjected to a crime WORSE than rape: Genital Mutilation.



And the most shocking thing is, this gutwrenching torture is perfectly legal.

[Tsar]

I don't think rape is good in any circumstance but there is a clear difference in the severity of rape.

If a virgin is raped then that is most severe. If a girlfriend, fiancee, or wife was raped then that is also most severe.

A woman that slept around with a few men is less severe than the above but relatively severe because she isn't exactly a slut but she is morally questionable.

A woman with 10 or more partners is a whore and if she is raped it isn't too severe just because sex is relatively meaningless after she becomes a slut. First of all she is not a virgin. She is nothing more than slut and her value as a good wife is already damaged.

Rape is definitely bad but the severity depends on the circumstances. The reason why rape was severely punishable was because women were expected to be virgins for their husband, and if they weren't it ruined their chances of getting a good man. Fast forward to the times when the majority of women are sluts and harlots, and the punishment is still just as severe. Historically, if a whore was raped I don't believe the authorities would do too much or take her seriously, while if a respectable lady was raped a man could be executed for that crime.

[clowny]

I don't think rape is good in any circumstance but there is a clear difference in the severity of rape.

If a virgin is raped then that is most severe. If a girlfriend, fiancee, or wife was raped then that is also most severe.

A woman that slept around with a few men is less severe than the above but relatively severe because she isn't exactly a slut but she is morally questionable.

A woman with 10 or more partners is a whore and if she is raped it isn't too severe just because sex is relatively meaningless after she becomes a slut. First of all she is not a virgin. She is nothing more than slut and her value as a good wife is already damaged.

Rape is definitely bad but the severity depends on the circumstances. The reason why rape was severely punishable was because women were expected to be virgins for their husband, and if they weren't it ruined their chances of getting a good man. Fast forward to the times when the majority of women are sluts and harlots, and the punishment is still just as severe. Historically, if a whore was raped I don't believe the authorities would do too much or take her seriously, while if a respectable lady was raped a man could be executed for that crime.

Genital Mutilation is a crime far more shocking and damaging than rape. Genital mutilation was implemented in the USA during the victorian era in an effort to prevent masterbation. The purpose of cutting off the foreskin of both males and females was to deprive them of their most erogenous genital tissue and create psycho-sexual trauma, as the victim's very first awareness of their own genitals was the horrific pain associated with it. Curiously, this practice was outlawed against females in 1996...and remains perfectly legal to commit against males.

[Tsar]

Genital Mutilation is a crime far more shocking and damaging than rape. Genital mutilation was implemented in the USA during the victorian era in an effort to prevent masterbation. The purpose of cutting off the foreskin of both males and females was to deprive them of their most erogenous genital tissue and create psycho-sexual trauma, as the victim's very first awareness of their own genitals was the horrific pain associated with it. Curiously, this practice was outlawed against females in 1996...and remains perfectly legal to commit against males.

I agree with your statements and the negative effects of genital mutilation.

Are men treated any differently by women if they have had circumcision (their genitals mutilated)? Should men spend money on foreskin restoration if the were circumcised?

[leavingusa]

Asking if you would want your mother/sister raped is not a rational argument, that's how a bitch argues from emotion only. If you cannot frame a rational argument you are not a man.

Rape in USA is essentially a property crime, taking p***y without paying. It cannot be a crime against the father since the father was ripped off a long time ago.

Victor Hugo discussed property crime in Les Misérables. The question was...should a man get 40 years for stealing a loaf of bread when bread is ridiculously expensive and he is starving? People forget many men have killed themselves over total denial, lest we side with feminists who deny that sex is a human need for men since they themselves do not need it.

Should we ask as the bitches do...how would you like your brother to kill himself because he is a 45 year old virgin? Apologists for women like to forget that the man was extorted first from his own paycheck so that cupcake does not need him and runs off with the adonis instead. However they want to put their heads firmly into the sand on this point and forget it happened and instead only blame the man who finally loses it for not dying quietly without disturbing anyone.

Les Misérables did not advocate stealing so maybe you can figure this one out on your own.

[clowny]

Genital Mutilation is a crime far more shocking and damaging than rape. Genital mutilation was implemented in the USA during the victorian era in an effort to prevent masterbation. The purpose of cutting off the foreskin of both males and females was to deprive them of their most erogenous genital tissue and create psycho-sexual trauma, as the victim's very first awareness of their own genitals was the horrific pain associated with it. Curiously, this practice was outlawed against females in 1996...and remains perfectly legal to commit against males.

I agree with your statements and the negative effects of genital mutilation.

Are men treated any differently by women if they have had circumcision (their genitals mutilated)? Should men spend money on foreskin restoration if the were circumcised?

85% of men in the world are intact (not mutilated), so most women in the world have intact partners and may have never seen a circumcised penis. I don't know how they would react to a circumcised penis. Of course this situation is reversed in the US, because most american men were mutilated as infants, so the "cut penis" is the norm in america.

Foreskin restoration is a growing movement in america as men are becoming educated to the fact that their sexual function and pleasure has been diminished as a result of having circumcision forced on them as infants. There are different foreskin restoration methods available (surgical and non-surgical).

http://www.foregen.org/