Foodiesoul
Foodiesoul's Forum Posts

Why are kids shows so terrible these days?Posted 2 years Ago

What's happened to kids shows these days? Disney Channel, Nickolodeon, and Cartoon Network used to actually make GOOD kids shows. Nowadays, kids shows are crappy and cheesy.

I remember when Disney Channel used to make GOOD programs that were actually NICE to watch such as Jessie, Good Luck Charlie, The Proud Family, Brandy & Mr Whiskers, Fish Hooks, Gravity Falls, Hannah Montana, Shake It Up, Lizzie McGuire, etc. In fact, Disney Channel even used to have GOOD original movies compared to now like Twitches, Hatching Pete, and Minutemen! Those were the best days of my life as those programs felt like a part of me and they gave me so many amazing memories.

Now, what do I see on Disney Channel?! Nothing but a bunch of crappy, cheesy sitcoms with a bunch of fake laughs. To me, this is sad because Disney Channel used to be full of magic and memories and now it's full of crap and lack of originality.

Nickolodeon also makes horrible kids shows compared to the ones I used to watch and be excited about as a kid such as iCarly, Victorious, Spongebob SquarePants (the old one as the new episodes just suck), The Backyardigans, Winx Club, Marvin Marvin, FRED: The Show, Jimmy Neutron, The Mighty B, Making Fiends, My Life As A Teenage Robot, Zoey 101, Bubble Guppies, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, etc.

Nick had some of the most AMAZING programs ever and now they've ruined it with crappy cartoons and cheesy live-action shows that make me want to puke sometimes.

I think Cartoon Network is one of the very few good kids channels left but even then, CN shows aren't as good as they used to be. Cartoon Network used to be AWESOME with shows such as Courage the Cowardly Dog, The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy, Teen Titans (Although I also love Teen Titans Go), George of the Jungle, Chowder, Adventure Time (the old episodes, not the new ones), The Powerpuff Girls (the old version. The new version is HORRIBLE), the old episodes of Regular Show, the old episodes of Steven Universe, Dexter's Laboratory, Cow and Chicken, Codename: Kids Next Door, Samurai Jack, Foster's Home For Imaginary Friends, Camp Lazlo, Squirrel Boy, My Gym Partner's A Monkey, Class of 3000, Flapjack, and more!

In fact, I think Teen Titans Go and The Amazing World of Gumball are the only good Cartoon Network shows left. Clarence, We Bare Bears, and the new version of The Powerpuff Girls are horrible!

PBS Kids was full of amazing shows like Wordgirl, WordWorld, the old episodes of Sesame Street, Wild Kratts, Cyberspace, Fetch!, Zoobamafoo, etc.

I could go on and on but then this OP would be WAY too long as I have seen THOUSANDS of amazing kids shows and cartoons.

I know this sounds cheesy but kids shows and cartoons are a part of us. They make us feel happy when we're feeling down as most kids shows are optimistic. They give us hope. They bring back memories and moments of happiness.

I feel bad for the kids of this era and the years to come because while most of us watched awesome kids shows, the kids of today and the future are stuck with watching horrible kids shows and cartoons that are so crappy it's heartbreaking.

Why are kids shows so terrible these days compared to the old days? It's pretty sad because I love kids cartoons and now, I can't really watch new kids cartoons as most of these new kids cartoons are LITERALLY just horrible!

When I look back at my childhood, I look back with tears and nostalgia, talking about how amazing all of the kids shows I watched were but I feel like when the kids of today look back at their childhood, they'll look back with disappointment at how crappy their kids programs were.
Forums Home > Entertainment

Women Wage More War than MenPosted 2 years Ago

At 7/18/2016 7:52:44 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
There's an assumption about women in power that you may have heard: that women who lead tend to be more diplomatic than their male counterparts, resulting in a more peaceful world. Psychologist Steven Pinker, for instance, wrote in his 2011 book, The Better Angels of Our Nature, "Over the long sweep of history, women have been and will be a pacifying force." But how much of that is true?

After sifting through historical data on queenly reigns across six centuries, two political scientists have found that it"s more complicated than that. In a recent working paper, New York University scholars Oeindrila Dube and S.P. Harish analyzed 28 European queenly reigns from 1480 to 1913 and found a 27 percent increase in wars when a queen was in power, as compared to the reign of a king. "People have this preconceived idea that states that are led by women engage in less conflict," Dube told Pacific Standard, but her analysis of the data on European queens suggests another story.

Interestingly, Dube and Harish think the reason why queens were able to take part in more military policy can be explained by the division of labor that tended to happen when a queen "particularly a married queen " ruled. Queens managed foreign policy and war policies, which were often important to bring in cash, while their husbands managed the state (think taxes, crime, judicial issues, etc.). As the authors theorize, "greater division of labor under queenly reigns could have enabled queens to pursue more aggressive war policies." Kings, on the other hand, didn't tend to engage in division of labor like ruling queens " or, more specifically, they may have shared military and state duties with some close adviser, but not with the queen. And, Dube and Harish argue, it may be this "asymmetry in how queens relied on male spouses and kings relied on female spouses [that] strengthened the relative capacity of queenly reigns, facilitating their greater participation in warfare."

Here"s Dube and Harish with more on that:

Female reigns may have had higher capacity to carry out war since queens often put their spouses in charge of official state matters. This division of labor would then have freed up time and resources for queens to pursue more aggressive war policies. In contrast, kings typically were less inclined to put their spouses in official positions through which they could aid in managing the polity.

This asymmetry in spousal division of labor emerged in several realms. Since women didn't serve as heads of militaries, queens would often appoint their husbands to this role, though kings of course, did not do the same with their wives.. As an example, when Queen Dona Maria II of Portugal married Prince Augustus Francis Anthony in 1836, their marriage contract stated that he would serve as commander in chief of the army.

And when husbands of queens managed state affairs, the success of the country was strong. The authors point to Francis Stephen, who revamped the Austrian economic system while his wife, Queen Maria Theresa, used that cash to bolster the army. "Spousal support," in other words, was a win-win for these royal couples, allowing queens to not only be more invested but also more successful than their peers who acted alone. (Modern couples, take note.) That doesn't mean that queens and kings always agreed " qualitative data suggests that, in fact, queens and kings often disagreed, and virulently, with some queens marching onto the battlefield without their spouse"s approval. And a few kings weren't too happy with being "king-consort," bickering with their wives over the title.

The queens" marital status made a difference here; as the authors write, "among married monarchs, queens were more likely to participate as attackers than kings." If a queen were single " which was the case with 13 of those they studied " she was more likely to be attacked compared to the times when a king was in power, perhaps because her country was seen in the outside world as being more vulnerable and thus easier to attack.

But the authors emphasize that the increase in wars on a queen"s watch is not likely explained by an attempt by the female leaders to signal their strength. Were that true, you"d expect a spike in war participation earlier in the queens" careers, and that wasn't the case according to the data analyzed here. Dube and Harish also argue that the queens were not actively seeking to fight more wars. But here are a few more relevant commonalities of queenly reigns: Queens didn't tend to use war ministers as much as kings, they relegated other tasks to their husbands, and they often threw themselves into the policy-making machine wholeheartedly.

It"s just a working paper, which means that Dube and Harish may uncover more as they continue to research this subject. But so far their findings have already begun to poke a few holes in some commonly held assumptions.

Well then, whoever says that female leaders are better than men or that male leaders are better tan women is stupid and sexist!

There are/were tons of terrible female leaders and tons of good female leaders and there are/were tons of terrible male leaders and tons of good male leaders!

It really just depends on the individual, NOT their gender!
Forums Home > History

Question to women:Posted 2 years Ago

At 8/20/2016 11:50:45 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 8/20/2016 3:55:43 AM, harrytruman wrote:
I am in a debate with a moron who thinks that women "like to be dominated," tell me your thoughts on said- individual.
http://www.debate.org...



In short, women do. Obviously, not all the time, however look at the 'market place' for such sexual activity.

And in short, you are a moron. Some men and women might like being abused but not all women/men like being abused!

Men pay for sex (or heavily compete for females) on a premium for 2 things- incredible looks or outside the norm talent, of which dominatrices fall into.

NO, NO, AND NO! Are you all men? NO, you're not! So don't say that all men pay for sex because not all men pay for sex! That's pretty sexist and offensive! There are tons of women who pay for sex too. Plus, NOT ALL MEN CARE ABOUT GOOD LOOKS! Implying that all men like sex is pretty sexist and f**ked up and I'm sure most people, at least most people who are RATIONAL human beings, unlike you, would agree with me!

The supply of female dominant sex is rare because the desire to do the work is virtually non existent, hence the price. On the flip side, 'male dominators' are virtually a dime a dozen, as its what most relationships on some level offer anyways.

Actually, female dominant sex isn't rare at all! There are TONS of supplies of female AND male dominant sex!
Forums Home > Society

Question to women:Posted 2 years Ago

At 8/20/2016 8:40:56 AM, foxxhajti wrote:
At 8/20/2016 3:55:43 AM, harrytruman wrote:
I am in a debate with a moron who thinks that women "like to be dominated," tell me your thoughts on said- individual.
http://www.debate.org...

He's an idiot, and it's obvious that you can't generalize people entirely based on their gender.

His quote was:
"But there"s a dark side to this. Because so many women like being dominated, they are more likely to tolerate physical and emotional abuse in relationships, and are less likely to strive to positions of power in society. In some ways, to be sexually fulfilled, women must sacrifice their dignity."

So I'll talk about this. I think there's a place for being dominated, and there's a place for not being dominated. Bronto is making it seem like women enjoy submitting themselves to abuse, which isn't the case. In terms of sexual acts, I'd say that in some cases, they like being more submissive, this, however, isn't how he worded his claim. I can guarantee you that women in most cases, hate emotional abuse and physical abuse. The part where he speaks about the likeliness to strive to positions of power in society, is semi-true perhaps. This claim has no evidence to back it up, however. In certain countries though, there's a higher percentage of women than men, in positions of power (http://one-europe.info...). He's also dismissing the fact that in some countries, women are more restricted from being in power. Countries which are more restrictive, have a lower female boss rate (http://www.businessinsider.com...).
Why would a woman need to sacrifice her dignity to be sexually fulfilled, anyway? The two aren't mutually exclusive.

His other quote:
"There"s also a dark side for men. Because men are turned on by being dominant, they are more likely to engage in rape and other sadistic acts, because for some men, consensual sex is a turnoff. If the woman is agreeing to the sex, she"s not being dominated, which ruins the experience for a lot of men. The dark truth is that a lot of men are so evil, they go home every night and have sex with their wives, while fantasizing about jumping out of the bushes and raping some completely random lady on the street."

I think it depends on the man, once again.
https://www.reddit.com...
https://www.reddit.com...

Lots tend to be switches, that go back and forth. This also implies that every sexual act committed by men can be non-consensual, and that it's a turn-off, implying that all are of aggressive nature, which is not the case. As a man, what do you think of these claims?

I agree that not all men are horny/aggressive because everyone is their own individual, not a stereotype!

Not all sex acts committed by men/women are non-consensual.

How stupid can people be?
Forums Home > Society

Question to women:Posted 2 years Ago

At 8/20/2016 1:29:20 PM, HeavenlyPanda wrote:
At 8/20/2016 3:55:43 AM, harrytruman wrote:
I am in a debate with a moron who thinks that women "like to be dominated," tell me your thoughts on said- individual.
http://www.debate.org...

Guys, guys, guys, this is brontoraptor we're talking about. I doesn't even know how to speak. I've proved he's dumb in a debate. For worry, Bronto is trying to practice speaking so that he can get with the ladies. It's obviously still not working out for him though.

No, he's practicing sexism and showing how much of a moron he is.

Trust me. NO ONE wants to be with a sexist or a racist. People don't deserve that!
Forums Home > Society

What is the point of having sex organs?Posted 2 years Ago

At 8/19/2016 12:29:38 AM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/17/2016 3:53:27 AM, matt8800 wrote:
At 8/17/2016 3:51:29 AM, Foodiesoul wrote:
At 8/16/2016 7:08:59 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 8/14/2016 7:04:07 PM, Foodiesoul wrote:


What's the point of a man having a penis that's just going to be erect whenever it wants to? That's not fair! NO ONE wants to have involuntary erections! I hate having involuntary erections! It makes me feel violated, like I'm being abused! It makes me feel suicidal.


If you don't toughen up for your own sake, you are going to have a rough life. Judging by your posts, you are probably the whiniest male I have ever encountered.

If a boner makes you want to die, what are you going to do when life actually gets tough? Man up!!

Seriously?! How sexist can you be?

Man up is such a sexist phrase! You must be one of those stupid sexists who thinks that all men should be tough! I am not going to be tough!

And yes, having an erection makes me want to die because it's embarrassing and it makes me feel disgusted with my own body!

Leave me alone!

If you are not already seeing a therapist, I suggest you do so.

Maybe he is a 13 year old kid? I would not be surprised judging from his posts. Cut him some slack.

I'm not 13 years old but thanks for trying to understand my pain.
Forums Home > Science

What is the point of having sex organs?Posted 2 years Ago

At 8/19/2016 1:14:37 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/17/2016 3:51:29 AM, Foodiesoul wrote:
At 8/16/2016 7:08:59 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 8/14/2016 7:04:07 PM, Foodiesoul wrote:


What's the point of a man having a penis that's just going to be erect whenever it wants to? That's not fair! NO ONE wants to have involuntary erections! I hate having involuntary erections! It makes me feel violated, like I'm being abused! It makes me feel suicidal.


If you don't toughen up for your own sake, you are going to have a rough life. Judging by your posts, you are probably the whiniest male I have ever encountered.

If a boner makes you want to die, what are you going to do when life actually gets tough? Man up!!

Seriously?! How sexist can you be?

Man up is such a sexist phrase! You must be one of those stupid sexists who thinks that all men should be tough! I am not going to be tough!

And yes, having an erection makes me want to die because it's embarrassing and it makes me feel disgusted with my own body!

Leave me alone!
This cant be a serious post after reading this haha

So rude.

I don't have time for stupid BS and immaturity!
Forums Home > Science

Gender inequality at the OlympicsPosted 2 years Ago

At 8/19/2016 9:56:16 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:23:05 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:08:42 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:03:29 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/18/2016 8:58:18 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
If female athletes want gender equality they should compete in the same events as the men. No restrictions, only the best athletes qualify and compete. I wonder what the percentage of women would be then...

I advocate this sort of attitude in the workplace but I don't see a reasonable argument to apply it to sport. What is it about an equal number of events for men and women you find unreasonable?

It's discriminatory to not allow the best athletes to compete in the Olympics. If the top 10 male sprinters and top 10 female sprinters get to attend, why should the 11th-20th fastest men have to lose their spots to 10 women who are all slower than them?

Because that would exclude the 10 best female sprinters. Seeing the fastest woman competing is far more important than seeing the 11th fastest man.

Fine, make an all woman Olympics then. Good luck finding sponsors, people care about the best person, not "best person in class."

Para Olympics would get more sponsors.

NOPE! They should just stick with making the Olympics mixed gender! An all women Olympics would just lead to sexist backlash!

The Paralympics is different because that's made for disabled people to be able to have the chance to play sports!
Forums Home > Society

Ask a male feminist anything.Posted 2 years Ago

At 8/18/2016 11:54:44 PM, missbailey8 wrote:
At 8/18/2016 11:38:04 PM, Foodiesoul wrote:
At 8/18/2016 11:34:35 PM, missbailey8 wrote:
At 8/18/2016 10:33:41 PM, Foodiesoul wrote:
At 8/18/2016 1:25:28 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:30:12 AM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 8/17/2016 8:43:20 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/17/2016 7:52:39 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:

That's a false equivalency. One is a child who doesn't fully grasp right from wrong and the other is an adult. But this attitude is a part of the problem. You're saying right now that being a man hit be a woman is the same as being hit by a child who can barely walk and that may have been the case between you and your ex but there are guys out there and I've seen them who get absolutely demolished by their female spouses and that doesn't make them any less of a man. Feminist are actually fighting against this idea while people like you continue to reinforce it.

Whether they grasp right from wrong is not the issue. Their relative strength is what's relevant. If I were hit by an intellectually and morally mature male who suffered from muscular dystrophy, I wouldn't press charges either.

As I stated before, any man who gets demolished by his woman either married a wildebeest, or is a massive pu$$y. I do have some sympathy for the guys who get stabbed or shot by their spouse, but even they should have known better than to marry a psychopath.

Jesus christ something is severely wrong with you. I bet $1000 i would absolutely destroy you in a fght. I have no idea about your physique or possible training and im willing to bet that much on myself. now when i beat you, does that make you less of a man than I? What if someone raped you? Are you now his b!tch?

Are you a healthy male? If so then there's no shame in me losing a fight to you. I'm not trained in boxing or martial arts and I've only been in one real fight in my life. I'm also not particularly tall or heavy, just average but in good overall shape. Now would you destroy me? Possibly, if you're built like an NFL player or you are a karate expert or something. But again, losing to a large powerful well trained male doesn't make another male less of a man.

Now as a healthy fully capable male, if someone rapes me then there are two possibilities: I'm in prison, or I was intoxicated out of my mind. I think prison rape is a terrible thing and I wish the guards would do something to prevent it instead of laughing about it. But as long as you can stay out of prison, you can avoid that type of violent rape. The other scenario is also easy to avoid: don't get wasted around a gay guy who you think might rape you. I personally don't drink, but if I did, I'd be sure to only get hammered if I knew that nobody around me would try to rape me. But guys don't have to stress about this too much, considering male rape is extremely uncommon compared to female rape.

NO!

Male rape is just as common as female rape and if someone ever does rape you, don't act like it never happened! REPORT IT until someone investigates your case and prosecutes the male/female rapist!
I want to see a statistic on your end to prove this. I'm not denying that male rape doesn't exist at all or even that it's less common than female rape, but I want to see the research you do on this topic. You can't just say something is true without providing the evidence to back up your claims.

You can also kill the male/female rapist who raped you because NO ONE, whether male OR female, deserves to be raped!
This is kind of hypocritical on your end. You say that you're against rape, but you also state that the victim should be allowed to kill their rapist. Violence to combat violence is not the way to go about this. If the alleged rapist in question is found guilty, then they should receive retribution, but not in the form of assault or death.

Women aren't always the perpetrators and men aren't always the perpetrators.
http://www.slate.com...
I never denied that male rape is impossible. In fact, I'd ask the exact same thing if you were discussing female rape.

1 in 6 is still A LOT!
http://www.fanninccc.org...
This is not a proven statistic, as it's a single image saying nothing more than the numbers, but not giving the reasoning behind them or how they got them.

You're right but the article is pretty solid evidence and it's not biased towards men or women. The article is very accurate.
Forums Home > Society

Ask a male feminist anything.Posted 2 years Ago

At 8/18/2016 11:34:35 PM, missbailey8 wrote:
At 8/18/2016 10:33:41 PM, Foodiesoul wrote:
At 8/18/2016 1:25:28 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:30:12 AM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 8/17/2016 8:43:20 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/17/2016 7:52:39 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:

That's a false equivalency. One is a child who doesn't fully grasp right from wrong and the other is an adult. But this attitude is a part of the problem. You're saying right now that being a man hit be a woman is the same as being hit by a child who can barely walk and that may have been the case between you and your ex but there are guys out there and I've seen them who get absolutely demolished by their female spouses and that doesn't make them any less of a man. Feminist are actually fighting against this idea while people like you continue to reinforce it.

Whether they grasp right from wrong is not the issue. Their relative strength is what's relevant. If I were hit by an intellectually and morally mature male who suffered from muscular dystrophy, I wouldn't press charges either.

As I stated before, any man who gets demolished by his woman either married a wildebeest, or is a massive pu$$y. I do have some sympathy for the guys who get stabbed or shot by their spouse, but even they should have known better than to marry a psychopath.

Jesus christ something is severely wrong with you. I bet $1000 i would absolutely destroy you in a fght. I have no idea about your physique or possible training and im willing to bet that much on myself. now when i beat you, does that make you less of a man than I? What if someone raped you? Are you now his b!tch?

Are you a healthy male? If so then there's no shame in me losing a fight to you. I'm not trained in boxing or martial arts and I've only been in one real fight in my life. I'm also not particularly tall or heavy, just average but in good overall shape. Now would you destroy me? Possibly, if you're built like an NFL player or you are a karate expert or something. But again, losing to a large powerful well trained male doesn't make another male less of a man.

Now as a healthy fully capable male, if someone rapes me then there are two possibilities: I'm in prison, or I was intoxicated out of my mind. I think prison rape is a terrible thing and I wish the guards would do something to prevent it instead of laughing about it. But as long as you can stay out of prison, you can avoid that type of violent rape. The other scenario is also easy to avoid: don't get wasted around a gay guy who you think might rape you. I personally don't drink, but if I did, I'd be sure to only get hammered if I knew that nobody around me would try to rape me. But guys don't have to stress about this too much, considering male rape is extremely uncommon compared to female rape.

NO!

Male rape is just as common as female rape and if someone ever does rape you, don't act like it never happened! REPORT IT until someone investigates your case and prosecutes the male/female rapist!
I want to see a statistic on your end to prove this. I'm not denying that male rape doesn't exist at all or even that it's less common than female rape, but I want to see the research you do on this topic. You can't just say something is true without providing the evidence to back up your claims.

You can also kill the male/female rapist who raped you because NO ONE, whether male OR female, deserves to be raped!
This is kind of hypocritical on your end. You say that you're against rape, but you also state that the victim should be allowed to kill their rapist. Violence to combat violence is not the way to go about this. If the alleged rapist in question is found guilty, then they should receive retribution, but not in the form of assault or death.

Women aren't always the perpetrators and men aren't always the perpetrators.
http://www.slate.com...

1 in 6 is still A LOT!
http://www.fanninccc.org...
Forums Home > Society