Bloomfield college facts Videos

+happinesstappy it's another high school called American

+AdvenCraft Gaming hmm nevermind XD i answered my own question.

+AdvenCraft Gaming because i was honestly on the feminists side because i thought she wasn't as stupid as the other girl

It's a negative word even when it's not used as a homophobic slur, but hey, as long as people don't start referring to the lgbt+ community the "queer" community, I'm fine with it.

+Jαε “Daddy” queer is being slowly retaken by the lgbt+ community, it's not necessarily homophobic any longer but I can understand your point, but some people also use queer in their identities so keep that in mind as well.

She is. I ain't no SJW but I know for a fact that she is showing some transphobia

shes not a transphobe are you deaf bro

It still transphobic to say a trans person has an illness that's like saying a gay person has an illness

+CloseToNormal She didn't really. She did say that she thinks they have an illness, but she also said she fully supports anyone who identifies as the other gender and wants to get a sex change. Misinformed, maybe, but definitely not transphobic.

hard to say .  she did say that she just started identifying as a feminist, maybe  the tumblr propoganda just got to her eventually. 

+rowan markovich Ouch. Why? She seemed kinda reasonable. :/

+Kamyl Cole the opposite apparently happened not long after this debate she took a tun for the big red and declared the debate problematic because it made the other side seem reasonable , needless to say the peasents were not happy

+Angie Soltero lol quick turnaround

Never mind, Janet is cool

+Izzrules I feel like Tori may have been intimidated by Janet due to lack of experience debating with sort of mean-spirited opponents. Janet sort of rubbed me the wrong way, with her patronizing facial expressions and insults, which really weren't necessary since her arguments were already conveyed with enough zeal

Wrong isn't the right word there

+Nihilanth1982 Citations and evidence that she has no concept of what she is talking about or STFU.

+Nobody Mister I don't think she meant it as in literally police the world with US military in other countries making sure they obey, but to act as a presence in the world market that keeps things peaceful due to the threat they represent if countries get unruly. Sort of like how the threat of mutual destruction with WMD's keep the peace.EDIT:I believe she is implying that the US is losing that strength as a superpower in opposition to Russia and China and this cannot be allowed to happen.

+Gail T And you say Janet is too dumb to vote? LOL

+Bad Frog Why not? Lies have been very effective in letting feminism get everything they want for the past 100 years...

But according to her research all candidates want to go to war, she just doesn't want to see men killed over it which Trump is the only one who seems to want to avoid sending men over there.War is a foregone conclusion, and you're right she will benefit from it, but her being a Trump supporter does not make this so because they all want to go to war anyways.Better to fight a war that we don't have to send soldiers than one where we do no?

She benefits from the protection and provision, that is why she supports war.

I don't see how she benefits from a war that men don't go off to fight but ok, your opinion. As for your claims about Trump, they are in direct opposition to the researched viewpoint portrayed in the video so unless you can cite evidence your claim in invalid.

Bullshit, Trump is as much a war hawk as the rest of the republican candidates, either way her and other trad con women benefit.

+Mike Schonewolf Uhm, did you even listen to her video? All the candidates want to attack Syria, the difference is, Trump DOES NOT want to send soldiers over there while the other candidates do. Trump wants to bomb their oil so ISIS can't make money and then let them sort their own shit out.In other words, she wants you to vote Trump so men don't have to go over there and die, where voting for the other people will have men be sent to die.

+Robert St. Estephe LOL, Upvoted for the comedy. =)

Catch me in part 2 doe! Lmao 

Your school seems like jokes

u should make a you now

Ur school look fun

Yes, she did bring up some good points, though I don't think her hostility was a strategy. It seems much more likely that it is just her honest reaction to what she believes is absolutely stupid. It's similar to reactions I used to have when I was younger and couldn't channel my energy as well.

I didn't find their debate on non-binary identities material to the debate. I'm not entirely sure what Janet was trying to accomplish by debating the definition. She actually seems to object to the term on the basis that she honestly does not believe there are more than two genders - the two sexes. Thank you for your insight. :) Would love to hear your other thoughts!Hopefully you were able to stomach the beginning and give Janet a chance to redeem herself. 

+Firewalker 92615 I pretty much agree with you on all points. It is nice to see levelheadedness and I do think it's becoming more rare because both sides are becoming galvanized and that does nothing beneficial for society. I try to be balanced, but I find myself becoming galvanized sometimes too. The things that made me start to question the anti-feminist perspective were Warren Farrel and Karen DeCrow. Tori does further that here. Even though she loses ground on the consent issue, it seems like she's fairly reasonable for the most part. Unfortunately, so much of what I see are the tumblr variety feminists.Last but not least, thank you for making the video. I wouldn't have sat through the debate otherwise.

Not to worry, I enjoy books! Please accept the following book in return:Thank you for the compliment of levelheadedness! It's something I value greatly.For the first point about VAWA: I'm glad you shared that tidbit of information. I honestly haven't looked into it. The main point I was making about Jan's position on the bill (and presumably MRA's position as well) is that you can amend it and make it more equal, and it would be remiss to say that it isn't important to help domestic abuse victims. Jan's argument here is that it's bad because it only seeks to protect women. That doesn't make it bad, it makes it incomplete. You make the argument here that it may be a poorly written bill because it forgoes due process, which is an entirely valid and important constitutional argument. Unfortunately, that's not the one Jan makes here.I agree that the erosion of due process is an incredibly dangerous thing, so I understand why you might identify as "anti-feminist" for the reasons you stated above. However, you can just as well stand for due process and equality by merely identifying as egalitarian. That would just as well, and more fairly cover those issues. My main issue with Jan's argument here is that she indicates that it's wrong to have a Feminist group because it only focuses on the needs of one group of people - women. Then at the same time she's part of MRA, the Men's Rights Activist. That's the same thing - just on the other side! If the problem is supporting one group over another, the answer is not to do the same thing on the other side of the aisle. It's hypocritical.The consent issue is extremely tricky litigation-wise, which is part of why I did not directly address it. It would take MONTHS of research to find any plausible solution and years more to find one that actually works. The two women in the video are debating consent in context of personal relationships, not in litigation. Absolutely claiming rape when it wasn't is bogus and it's definitely becoming a problem in society. When these laws came into place, there was the opposite problem - men couldn't be convicted in cases of actual rape because the standards were unreasonable and unattainable - and now we see the opposite problem. The system has over corrected. Now the standard of proof for obtaining consent is unreasonably high. One example is the fact that consent cannot be obtained when a person is drunk. It is unreasonable to say that someone can be convicted of rape when their partner is over a certain blood alcohol content but not below is ridiculous. Are we supposed to start breathalyzing before sex? It is a proven fact that alcohol affects your cognitive and motor abilities. If you don't want to make a stupid decision, then don't drink too much! Know your limits! Don't get shit-faced at a bar with people you don't know or with friends that are shitty friends. You (being people, not actually YOU) make a conscious and informed decision to lower your cognitive functions, so you should not be able to blame someone else for the result. BAC should not be considered in rape cases. And to clarify, I am only speaking about instances when someone gave consent while drunk and then charged someone else with rape. Last but not least, at the end Janet talks about men being able to opt-out of fatherhood and says that he is beholden to the woman's decision. You point out that sex is a consensual decision, but she the decision she is talking about is the decision to keep the child which is a decision that the female has unilateral control over.I see what you mean about my mutual consent comment. Her wording kind'a threw me off there. Thanks for pointing it out!Thanks so much for taking the time to watch this whole video and even more for taking the time to have a calm, logical, intelligent dialogue with me about it. :) One of the perks of a small channel, I think. 

Yeah the only reason I made it through the first time was because my fiance promised me it got better. It was a struggle.