CDZ What is torture?

[MarathonMike]

dblack thank you for illustrating the typical Liberal response to a disagreement. You realize this isn't the Flame zone, right?

 

[dblack]

dblack thank you for illustrating the typical Liberal response to a disagreement. You realize this isn't the Flame zone, right?

Yeah. I don't really care. Miscreants attempting to justify torture are filth.

 

[MarathonMike]

Or perhaps you are incapable of a cogent response to the topic?

 

[dblack]

Or perhaps you are incapable of a cogent response to the topic?

Possibly. Torture doesn't appeal to me rationally.

 

[2aguy]

Liberals love to jump up on their soapboxes wagging their fingers when discussing torture. "We are better than this!" "We Americans do not torture!" That makes them feel all fuzzy inside but it puts America and the world at a strategic disadvantage because our enemies not only torture for information, they torture for entertainment. So what is torture? Torture is defined as the act inflicting "severe pain" on an individual. So how is Waterboarding torture? My idea of torture is hooking up a terrorist to a battery or perhaps some creative uses of pig's blood. I would never advocate dismemberment, sexual assault of any kind, or drowning. But if causes no permanent damage and results in saving one innocent life then torture is not only warranted we are idiots to not employ it. How do you define torture and would you advocate the use of it interrogating Terrorists?

But the fact is torture does not save lies. What do people do when they are tortured? They talk and talk and say whatever they think will stop the torture. It has never been a good interrogation method because it yields so much bad information. In an interrogation bad information is worse than no information.

"The barbarous custom of having men beaten who are suspected of having important secrets to reveal must be abolished. It has always been recognized that this way of interrogating men, by putting them to torture, produces nothing worthwhile. The poor wretches say anything that comes into their mind and what they think the interrogator wishes to know."
Napoleon Bonaparte

do you know how dumb that talking point is? The guys using harsh interrogation or torture know to actually verify what the subject says...you know...to see if what they are saying is true.....and they still have the guy in custody...so if he didn't tell the truth....they can drip more water.......

Do you guys think about this or do you just repeat what the anti water boarding people say when they say it?

 

[2aguy]

Liberals love to jump up on their soapboxes wagging their fingers when discussing torture. "We are better than this!" "We Americans do not torture!" That makes them feel all fuzzy inside but it puts America and the world at a strategic disadvantage because our enemies not only torture for information, they torture for entertainment. So what is torture? Torture is defined as the act inflicting "severe pain" on an individual. So how is Waterboarding torture? My idea of torture is hooking up a terrorist to a battery or perhaps some creative uses of pig's blood. I would never advocate dismemberment, sexual assault of any kind, or drowning. But if [it] causes no permanent damage and results in saving one innocent life then torture is not only warranted we are idiots to not employ it. How do you define torture and would you advocate the use of it interrogating Terrorists?

Perhaps you should volunteer to be waterboarded so you can determine first hand how torturous an act it is?


Maybe law enforcement, military, intelligence and security agencies should ask potential victims whether they consider waterboarding torturous. If one responds, no, interrogators can then use the tactic to elicit answers?


Red:

Has it occurred to you that liberals and conservatives alike are keen to making hasty generalizations and drawing unfounded conclusions from them. What intellectually rigorous research have you conducted that leads you to the conclusions you've articulated in your OP? Have you even so much as bothered to look for and read the critical research others have performed on the matter?

• The Effects and Effectiveness of Using Torture as an Interrogation Device: Using Research to Inform the Policy Debate
  
  "Torture does not produce reliable information, it may persist because it satisfies psychological needs in times of stress. Specifically, it counters a sense of desperation, reassures interrogators that they are in control, and bestows a feeling of empowerment, at least in the enclosed world of the interrogation room."
• A Question of Torture: CIA interrogation, From the Cold War to the War on Terror
  
  "Even though torture is not, on balance, effective or rational, it persists through its deep psychological appeal, to the powerful and the powerless alike, in times of crisis."

Folks who oppose torture -- liberal or conservative -- are folks who've bothered to review the scientifically conducted research into the tactic, its benefits and downsides. If you were to do so as well, you'll understand that being opposed to the use of torture has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative, but that it has to do with being intelligent enough to know that implementing it is a waste of resources relative to the actual results it delivers.

I have posted 3 former prisoners of war who actually were tortured...broken bones and far worse...two of them Congressional Medal of Honor awardees for their heroic efforts at resisting the enemy...and all three of them say waterboarding is harsh, but not torture....they are experts on torture...having endured real torture at the hands of the Vietnamese..........they were room mates of John McCain at the Hanoi Hilton....perhaps you should pay att nation to what they say about it...?

 

[2aguy]

Liberals love to jump up on their soapboxes wagging their fingers when discussing torture. "We are better than this!" "We Americans do not torture!" That makes them feel all fuzzy inside but it puts America and the world at a strategic disadvantage because our enemies not only torture for information, they torture for entertainment. So what is torture? Torture is defined as the act inflicting "severe pain" on an individual. So how is Waterboarding torture? My idea of torture is hooking up a terrorist to a battery or perhaps some creative uses of pig's blood. I would never advocate dismemberment, sexual assault of any kind, or drowning. But if [it] causes no permanent damage and results in saving one innocent life then torture is not only warranted we are idiots to not employ it. How do you define torture and would you advocate the use of it interrogating Terrorists?

Perhaps you should volunteer to be waterboarded so you can determine first hand how torturous an act it is?


Maybe law enforcement, military, intelligence and security agencies should ask potential victims whether they consider waterboarding torturous. If one responds, no, interrogators can then use the tactic to elicit answers?


Red:

Has it occurred to you that liberals and conservatives alike are keen to making hasty generalizations and drawing unfounded conclusions from them. What intellectually rigorous research have you conducted that leads you to the conclusions you've articulated in your OP? Have you even so much as bothered to look for and read the critical research others have performed on the matter?

• The Effects and Effectiveness of Using Torture as an Interrogation Device: Using Research to Inform the Policy Debate
  
  "Torture does not produce reliable information, it may persist because it satisfies psychological needs in times of stress. Specifically, it counters a sense of desperation, reassures interrogators that they are in control, and bestows a feeling of empowerment, at least in the enclosed world of the interrogation room."
• A Question of Torture: CIA interrogation, From the Cold War to the War on Terror
  
  "Even though torture is not, on balance, effective or rational, it persists through its deep psychological appeal, to the powerful and the powerless alike, in times of crisis."

Folks who oppose torture -- liberal or conservative -- are folks who've bothered to review the scientifically conducted research into the tactic, its benefits and downsides. If you were to do so as well, you'll understand that being opposed to the use of torture has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative, but that it has to do with being intelligent enough to know that implementing it is a waste of resources relative to the actual results it delivers.

Do you realize that when water boarding is used on trainees in military survival schools...they all break...right? We are talking Special Forces candidates and Seal candidates......as well as pilots....it gets them all to talk...did you know that?

Water boarding works and leaves no temporary or permanent damage....once the guy talks all he does is towel off.........

They say Khalid sheik Muhammad broke...and then told them everything...

According to jihadi training, once they resist and are broken, they are allowed to talk....because according to their belief system they are going to win, so nothing they actually reveal will change that eventual outcome.....

Khalid gave up information on deep aspects of the terrorist networks.......vital information no one knew about.....

Law enforcement interrogation does not work on radical jihadi....they are train d to resist it...they can't resist water boarding...

 

[320 Years of History]

Liberals love to jump up on their soapboxes wagging their fingers when discussing torture. "We are better than this!" "We Americans do not torture!" That makes them feel all fuzzy inside but it puts America and the world at a strategic disadvantage because our enemies not only torture for information, they torture for entertainment. So what is torture? Torture is defined as the act inflicting "severe pain" on an individual. So how is Waterboarding torture? My idea of torture is hooking up a terrorist to a battery or perhaps some creative uses of pig's blood. I would never advocate dismemberment, sexual assault of any kind, or drowning. But if [it] causes no permanent damage and results in saving one innocent life then torture is not only warranted we are idiots to not employ it. How do you define torture and would you advocate the use of it interrogating Terrorists?

Perhaps you should volunteer to be waterboarded so you can determine first hand how torturous an act it is?


Maybe law enforcement, military, intelligence and security agencies should ask potential victims whether they consider waterboarding torturous. If one responds, no, interrogators can then use the tactic to elicit answers?


Red:

Has it occurred to you that liberals and conservatives alike are keen to making hasty generalizations and drawing unfounded conclusions from them. What intellectually rigorous research have you conducted that leads you to the conclusions you've articulated in your OP? Have you even so much as bothered to look for and read the critical research others have performed on the matter?

• The Effects and Effectiveness of Using Torture as an Interrogation Device: Using Research to Inform the Policy Debate
  
  "Torture does not produce reliable information, it may persist because it satisfies psychological needs in times of stress. Specifically, it counters a sense of desperation, reassures interrogators that they are in control, and bestows a feeling of empowerment, at least in the enclosed world of the interrogation room."
• A Question of Torture: CIA interrogation, From the Cold War to the War on Terror
  
  "Even though torture is not, on balance, effective or rational, it persists through its deep psychological appeal, to the powerful and the powerless alike, in times of crisis."

Folks who oppose torture -- liberal or conservative -- are folks who've bothered to review the scientifically conducted research into the tactic, its benefits and downsides. If you were to do so as well, you'll understand that being opposed to the use of torture has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative, but that it has to do with being intelligent enough to know that implementing it is a waste of resources relative to the actual results it delivers.

Liberals turn the subject of torture into climate science. I'm sure I'm going to get some graphs of torture statistics compiled by Professor Plum showing poor correlation between torture and quality of information or some bullshit like that. If our intel people want to use it, then untie their hands and let them. If they don't think it's effective then they won't use it. It isn't a requirement, it is an option. If it yields good information at all, and saves any lives at all, then it is a worthwhile tool. And no, I'm not going to require our intel people to ask a subhuman terrorist if he feels comfortable with waterboarding.

Well, if all that really matters is your opinion and that of others who want to use torture, there really is no point in our system of rule nor in any of the philosophical systems from which we derive our morality.

Red:
No matter what liberals or conservatives do en masse, you clearly evaluate and conclude upon this matter from a position of willful ignorance.

Or perhaps you are incapable of a cogent response to the topic?

You have some nerve calling someone "incapable of a cogent response." You who have citing scholarly research into the matter as indicating a "poor correlation between torture and quality of information." Were the correlation shown in the papers I provided and that you likely have not read, you'd show specifically what gives rise to the "poor correlation" you assert exists. Of course, you have not so shown.

 

[2aguy]

Liberals love to jump up on their soapboxes wagging their fingers when discussing torture. "We are better than this!" "We Americans do not torture!" That makes them feel all fuzzy inside but it puts America and the world at a strategic disadvantage because our enemies not only torture for information, they torture for entertainment. So what is torture? Torture is defined as the act inflicting "severe pain" on an individual. So how is Waterboarding torture? My idea of torture is hooking up a terrorist to a battery or perhaps some creative uses of pig's blood. I would never advocate dismemberment, sexual assault of any kind, or drowning. But if [it] causes no permanent damage and results in saving one innocent life then torture is not only warranted we are idiots to not employ it. How do you define torture and would you advocate the use of it interrogating Terrorists?

Perhaps you should volunteer to be waterboarded so you can determine first hand how torturous an act it is?


Maybe law enforcement, military, intelligence and security agencies should ask potential victims whether they consider waterboarding torturous. If one responds, no, interrogators can then use the tactic to elicit answers?


Red:

Has it occurred to you that liberals and conservatives alike are keen to making hasty generalizations and drawing unfounded conclusions from them. What intellectually rigorous research have you conducted that leads you to the conclusions you've articulated in your OP? Have you even so much as bothered to look for and read the critical research others have performed on the matter?

• The Effects and Effectiveness of Using Torture as an Interrogation Device: Using Research to Inform the Policy Debate
  
  "Torture does not produce reliable information, it may persist because it satisfies psychological needs in times of stress. Specifically, it counters a sense of desperation, reassures interrogators that they are in control, and bestows a feeling of empowerment, at least in the enclosed world of the interrogation room."
• A Question of Torture: CIA interrogation, From the Cold War to the War on Terror
  
  "Even though torture is not, on balance, effective or rational, it persists through its deep psychological appeal, to the powerful and the powerless alike, in times of crisis."

Folks who oppose torture -- liberal or conservative -- are folks who've bothered to review the scientifically conducted research into the tactic, its benefits and downsides. If you were to do so as well, you'll understand that being opposed to the use of torture has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative, but that it has to do with being intelligent enough to know that implementing it is a waste of resources relative to the actual results it delivers.

Liberals turn the subject of torture into climate science. I'm sure I'm going to get some graphs of torture statistics compiled by Professor Plum showing poor correlation between torture and quality of information or some bullshit like that. If our intel people want to use it, then untie their hands and let them. If they don't think it's effective then they won't use it. It isn't a requirement, it is an option. If it yields good information at all, and saves any lives at all, then it is a worthwhile tool. And no, I'm not going to require our intel people to ask a subhuman terrorist if he feels comfortable with waterboarding.

Well, if all that really matters is your opinion and that of others who want to use torture, there really is no point in our system of rule nor in any of the philosophical systems from which we derive our morality.

Red:
No matter what liberals or conservatives do en masse, you clearly evaluate and conclude upon this matter from a position of willful ignorance.

Hmmm..I guess 3 actual POWs who survived actual torture and agree that water boarding is not torture is not something you care to address....

 

[MarathonMike]

So let's make sure we don't make Terrorists uncomfortable for a few minutes even it may yield important strategic information and save lives. Remember these are the folks that would love to turn every American into hamburger.

 

[2aguy]

Here it is......they stopped water boarding in the military because it worked...so much so they believe it made recruits less able to resist it in the event of actually facing it....

Why is it too dangerous? Not physically...mentally, because they all break in training...even knowing that they are in training, and they can't truly be killEd...they still gave it up under water boarding......

EXCLUSIVE: Waterboarding Too Dangerous, Internal DoD Memo Reveals

SERE stands for Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape, and SERE schools exist across the military services, but the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (JPRA) is considered the "Executive Agency" for all the SERE schools. The aim of SERE "Code of Conduct" training is to prepare US military personnel for possible capture and torture by an enemy that does not follow Geneva conventions guidelines.

The Clare memo stated, in part:

3. Area of Concern: The JPRA official stance is that the water board should not be used as a physical pressure during Level C SERE training.
This position is based on factors that have the potential to affect not only students but also the whole DoD SERE program.

The way the water board is most often employed, it leaves students psychologically defeated with no ability to resist under pressure. Once a student is taught that they can be beaten, and there is no way to resist, it is difficult to develop psychological hardiness.

None of the other schools use the water board that leaves the San Diego school as a standout.

Does this sound like it is ineffective?

 

[320 Years of History]

Liberals love to jump up on their soapboxes wagging their fingers when discussing torture. "We are better than this!" "We Americans do not torture!" That makes them feel all fuzzy inside but it puts America and the world at a strategic disadvantage because our enemies not only torture for information, they torture for entertainment. So what is torture? Torture is defined as the act inflicting "severe pain" on an individual. So how is Waterboarding torture? My idea of torture is hooking up a terrorist to a battery or perhaps some creative uses of pig's blood. I would never advocate dismemberment, sexual assault of any kind, or drowning. But if [it] causes no permanent damage and results in saving one innocent life then torture is not only warranted we are idiots to not employ it. How do you define torture and would you advocate the use of it interrogating Terrorists?

Perhaps you should volunteer to be waterboarded so you can determine first hand how torturous an act it is?


Maybe law enforcement, military, intelligence and security agencies should ask potential victims whether they consider waterboarding torturous. If one responds, no, interrogators can then use the tactic to elicit answers?


Red:

Has it occurred to you that liberals and conservatives alike are keen to making hasty generalizations and drawing unfounded conclusions from them. What intellectually rigorous research have you conducted that leads you to the conclusions you've articulated in your OP? Have you even so much as bothered to look for and read the critical research others have performed on the matter?

• The Effects and Effectiveness of Using Torture as an Interrogation Device: Using Research to Inform the Policy Debate
  
  "Torture does not produce reliable information, it may persist because it satisfies psychological needs in times of stress. Specifically, it counters a sense of desperation, reassures interrogators that they are in control, and bestows a feeling of empowerment, at least in the enclosed world of the interrogation room."
• A Question of Torture: CIA interrogation, From the Cold War to the War on Terror
  
  "Even though torture is not, on balance, effective or rational, it persists through its deep psychological appeal, to the powerful and the powerless alike, in times of crisis."

Folks who oppose torture -- liberal or conservative -- are folks who've bothered to review the scientifically conducted research into the tactic, its benefits and downsides. If you were to do so as well, you'll understand that being opposed to the use of torture has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative, but that it has to do with being intelligent enough to know that implementing it is a waste of resources relative to the actual results it delivers.

Liberals turn the subject of torture into climate science. I'm sure I'm going to get some graphs of torture statistics compiled by Professor Plum showing poor correlation between torture and quality of information or some bullshit like that. If our intel people want to use it, then untie their hands and let them. If they don't think it's effective then they won't use it. It isn't a requirement, it is an option. If it yields good information at all, and saves any lives at all, then it is a worthwhile tool. And no, I'm not going to require our intel people to ask a subhuman terrorist if he feels comfortable with waterboarding.

Well, if all that really matters is your opinion and that of others who want to use torture, there really is no point in our system of rule nor in any of the philosophical systems from which we derive our morality.

Red:
No matter what liberals or conservatives do en masse, you clearly evaluate and conclude upon this matter from a position of willful ignorance.

Or perhaps you are incapable of a cogent response to the topic?

You have some nerve calling someone "incapable of a cogent response." You who have citing scholarly research into the matter as indicating a "poor correlation between torture and quality of information." Were the correlation shown in the papers I provided and that you likely have not read, you'd show specifically what gives rise to the "poor correlation" you assert exists. Of course, you have not so shown.

So let's make sure we don't make Terrorists uncomfortable for a few minutes even it may yield important strategic information and save lives. Remember these are the folks that would love to turn every American into hamburger.

It's not about whether anyone is comfortable or not. It's about whether a given means of obtaining information is effective. And were you to have read the studies I provided links for and other similarly cogent explorations into the effectiveness of torture, you'd know that it is not.

 

[2aguy]

Liberals love to jump up on their soapboxes wagging their fingers when discussing torture. "We are better than this!" "We Americans do not torture!" That makes them feel all fuzzy inside but it puts America and the world at a strategic disadvantage because our enemies not only torture for information, they torture for entertainment. So what is torture? Torture is defined as the act inflicting "severe pain" on an individual. So how is Waterboarding torture? My idea of torture is hooking up a terrorist to a battery or perhaps some creative uses of pig's blood. I would never advocate dismemberment, sexual assault of any kind, or drowning. But if [it] causes no permanent damage and results in saving one innocent life then torture is not only warranted we are idiots to not employ it. How do you define torture and would you advocate the use of it interrogating Terrorists?

Perhaps you should volunteer to be waterboarded so you can determine first hand how torturous an act it is?


Maybe law enforcement, military, intelligence and security agencies should ask potential victims whether they consider waterboarding torturous. If one responds, no, interrogators can then use the tactic to elicit answers?


Red:

Has it occurred to you that liberals and conservatives alike are keen to making hasty generalizations and drawing unfounded conclusions from them. What intellectually rigorous research have you conducted that leads you to the conclusions you've articulated in your OP? Have you even so much as bothered to look for and read the critical research others have performed on the matter?

• The Effects and Effectiveness of Using Torture as an Interrogation Device: Using Research to Inform the Policy Debate
  
  "Torture does not produce reliable information, it may persist because it satisfies psychological needs in times of stress. Specifically, it counters a sense of desperation, reassures interrogators that they are in control, and bestows a feeling of empowerment, at least in the enclosed world of the interrogation room."
• A Question of Torture: CIA interrogation, From the Cold War to the War on Terror
  
  "Even though torture is not, on balance, effective or rational, it persists through its deep psychological appeal, to the powerful and the powerless alike, in times of crisis."

Folks who oppose torture -- liberal or conservative -- are folks who've bothered to review the scientifically conducted research into the tactic, its benefits and downsides. If you were to do so as well, you'll understand that being opposed to the use of torture has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative, but that it has to do with being intelligent enough to know that implementing it is a waste of resources relative to the actual results it delivers.

Liberals turn the subject of torture into climate science. I'm sure I'm going to get some graphs of torture statistics compiled by Professor Plum showing poor correlation between torture and quality of information or some bullshit like that. If our intel people want to use it, then untie their hands and let them. If they don't think it's effective then they won't use it. It isn't a requirement, it is an option. If it yields good information at all, and saves any lives at all, then it is a worthwhile tool. And no, I'm not going to require our intel people to ask a subhuman terrorist if he feels comfortable with waterboarding.

Well, if all that really matters is your opinion and that of others who want to use torture, there really is no point in our system of rule nor in any of the philosophical systems from which we derive our morality.

Red:
No matter what liberals or conservatives do en masse, you clearly evaluate and conclude upon this matter from a position of willful ignorance.

Or perhaps you are incapable of a cogent response to the topic?

You have some nerve calling someone "incapable of a cogent response." You who have citing scholarly research into the matter as indicating a "poor correlation between torture and quality of information." Were the correlation shown in the papers I provided and that you likely have not read, you'd show specifically what gives rise to the "poor correlation" you assert exists. Of course, you have not so shown.

So let's make sure we don't make Terrorists uncomfortable for a few minutes even it may yield important strategic information and save lives. Remember these are the folks that would love to turn every American into hamburger.

It's not about whether anyone is comfortable or not. It's about whether a given means of obtaining information is effective. And were you to have read the studies I provided links for and other similarly cogent explorations into the effectiveness of torture, you'd know that it is not.

You have read biased studies.......as the links I have shown point out........waterboarding is highly effective and leaves no temporary or permanent damage.......it gets information from hardened islamic terrorists without maiming, injuring or killing them....and they talk...and talk...and talk, after they get water boarded........

giving up waterboarding as a method to get information is going to endanger lives.......innocent lives....

 

[2aguy]

There is an individual on another site I used to post on....I challenged her to a test.......I would test her concept of torture in a competition....

I would be waterboarded by trained professionals...if she agreed to experience actual torture......which would consist of having her two front teeth knocked out with a chisel.......

The actual test, wether or not waterboarding could be considered torture, would be proven thusly.........after we each experienced our respective interrogation techniques...we would have to sit down together to a nice steak dinner, immediately after the conclusion of our interrogation session.....whoever could finish and enjoy that dinner would be the winner........

That would help to show the difference between actual torture...knocking out teeth with a chisel....and harsh, but non damaging, waterboarding.......

of course she did not accept.....

They say that after khalid mohammed was broken and was talking his head off, his reward meal that he loved was Kentucky Fried Chicken....

 

[Agit8r]

Well there is medieval water torture, for one...

 

[anotherlife]

Here is another idea of torture. Let's tie you up butt naked in front of a usual angry big lesbo, and see what she does to you.

 

[320 Years of History]

Here is another idea of torture. Let's tie you up butt naked in front of a usual angry big lesbo, and see what she does to you.

I'll tell you what the lesbian will do. If your wife or girlfriend is hot, that's who the lesbian will notice and respond to. If the lesbian is going to take an interest in you, it's merely because you are a bound naked human, not because you are a bound naked man.

If bound and naked one finds it tortuous that the angry lesbian pays you no mind, well, that's on you.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Liberals love to jump up on their soapboxes wagging their fingers when discussing torture. "We are better than this!" "We Americans do not torture!" That makes them feel all fuzzy inside but it puts America and the world at a strategic disadvantage because our enemies not only torture for information, they torture for entertainment. So what is torture? Torture is defined as the act inflicting "severe pain" on an individual. So how is Waterboarding torture? My idea of torture is hooking up a terrorist to a battery or perhaps some creative uses of pig's blood. I would never advocate dismemberment, sexual assault of any kind, or drowning. But if causes no permanent damage and results in saving one innocent life then torture is not only warranted we are idiots to not employ it. How do you define torture and would you advocate the use of it interrogating Terrorists?

It's stupid because it doesn't work. If it worked, you might get somewhere having the discussion about where to draw the line.

Why can't nutbags comprehend the fact that this shit does not work?

 

[anotherlife]

Here is another idea of torture. Let's tie you up butt naked in front of a usual angry big lesbo, and see what she does to you.

I'll tell you what the lesbian will do. If your wife or girlfriend is hot, that's who the lesbian will notice and respond to. If the lesbian is going to take an interest in you, it's merely because you are a bound naked human, not because you are a bound naked man.

If bound and naked one finds it tortuous that the angry lesbian pays you no mind, well, that's on you.

No because lesbians hate men. They actively try to outcompete men. And they enjoy attacking men, and even attacking prepubescent male children. Lesbians are not like their male gay counterparts that are harmless to women, at all. Lesbians are natural aggressors, and men is what they hate the most.

 

[320 Years of History]

Here is another idea of torture. Let's tie you up butt naked in front of a usual angry big lesbo, and see what she does to you.

I'll tell you what the lesbian will do. If your wife or girlfriend is hot, that's who the lesbian will notice and respond to. If the lesbian is going to take an interest in you, it's merely because you are a bound naked human, not because you are a bound naked man.

If bound and naked one finds it tortuous that the angry lesbian pays you no mind, well, that's on you.

No because lesbians hate men. They actively try to outcompete men. And they enjoy attacking men, and even attacking prepubescent male children. Lesbians are not like their male gay counterparts that are harmless to women, at all. Lesbians are natural aggressors, and men is what they hate the most.

Of course lesbians hate men and enjoy attacking men. The recent rise in documented hate crimes committed by lesbians against men is a fine illustration of that. ROTFL at you!

I bid you to show me any scholarly research that hs shown that lesbians as a class of women by and large hate men. You will find none.

Lesbians don't hate men, they just don't want to enter into pair-bonds with men and they don't want to have sex with men. That's not at all the same thing as hating men.

You need to get past the notion that a woman who doesn't adore your penis does not necessarily hate you or men in general. Trust me, if a lesbian hates you specifically, it has little to do with your penis.