|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 08, @09:40AM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Ummmm - the answer is ... YES!
Only an idiot would marry or have children with a woman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 08, @09:52AM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
WOULD YOU SIGN THIS CONTRACT?
An employer can, at any time, dismiss an employee, without justification, and have that employee imprisoned if he objects too strongly to his dismissal. For example, if the employee raises his voice in anger he may be arrested for 'violence'. In any event, an employer can dismiss an employee regardless of the circumstances, and at his sole discretion. He can fire him from his job, whenever he wishes, no matter how long the employee has served with the company, and even if the employee has done absolutely nothing wrong. Further, the employer can insist that the employee is evicted from his own house, and never allowed to re-enter it. An employer may further demand that the sacked employee must, under threat of imprisonment, forfeit part of any future income to the employer for some considerable time into the future.
How many incidents of violence against employers would take place annually if these were the terms and conditions that were set for all their employees?
An enormous number, one would imagine.
Now read this. It's the Lovers Contract.
"A woman can, at any time, dismiss her male partner, without justification, and have that partner imprisoned if he objects too strongly to his dismissal. For example, if he raises his voice in anger he may be arrested for 'domestic violence'. In any event, a woman can dismiss the man regardless of the circumstances, and at her sole discretion. She can fire him from his jobs as father and partner, whenever she wishes, no matter how long he has served the family, and even if he has done absolutely nothing wrong. Further, the woman can insist that the man is evicted from his own house, and never allowed to re-enter it. If she has children, a woman may further demand that her sacked partner must, under threat of imprisonment, forfeit part of any future income to the woman and her children for some considerable time into the future - and this is the case even if her children turn out not to be his.
There you have it. The question answers itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I doubt your theory unless it applies to women as well. Women are also statistically having children at later times and larger numbers having no children at all, relative to historical data on the same subject.
My theory is that people today have a lot more options in life and are more socially conditioned to enjoy more leisur time and freer spending of discretionary income. They travel more, eat out more, buy more non-neccessary items, etc etc. Having children is a serious time/money committment that many people choose to mitigate by having fewer children (or no children) and having them later in life once they've accumulated more wealth.
Also in historical terms, men usually waited till later in life to marry. It was customary not to marry until one had land or accumlated enough money to marry and raise a family. Prior to contraceptives, a man who married had the expectation of support many children. For example, of my 8 sets of great gradparents, the average number of (surviving) children for each couple was NINE kids. (Two sets had 12 surviving kies and one set had 11 surviving kids). So marriage had very serious implications for both parents. For men it conferred the huge responsibility for feeding and sheltering lots of kids. For this reason men tended to marry later.
My dear maternal grandfater was married at 35 (my grandmother was a relatively old bride at 25). My paternal granfather married at 30. Both of them had spent their 20's securing land or setting up a business before they married.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A man faces a the risk of having his children taken from him, of being the victim of false accusations, of being the victim of paternity fraud, of having to support the person who left him and legally kidnapped his children. Relative to a man, a woman's risk of being the victim of these atrocities is miniscule to non-existent. It is for these reasons that men are becoming far more likely than women to avoid marriage or having children.
But of course, since you're a feminist, the injustices and oppression suffered by men are not worth mentioning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think it's proven that this it the reason men are marrying later or not at all. Certainly it is reasonable to use this as a hypothesis and check it out.
Also, you'd have to compare the age of men marrying and the number never marrying today with historical statistical data to claim men are marrying less or later now vs. then.
We cannot draw conclusions about motive re: the number of children now vs. later because of the advent of contraceptives.
Also, in earlier times it would be assumed that if men did not want children, he would not marry, since children were foregone conclusion in marriage in past times. And as I mentioned, in addition to desire for children, men who had less capacity to support children did not get married as often, or married later when they could afford to support children.
One could draw similar conclusions today about marriage and men and children. For example, I think it's reasonable to theorize that many men who do not want children, don't marry or they marry later in life for many of the same reasons their grandfathers and great grandfathers did, they want financial security before they marry and have children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think it's proven that this it the reason men are marrying later or not at all.
If you ever bothered to truly listen to men on discussion boards like this one, you'd know that these are reasons for men marrying later or not at all.
In addition, as has been noted on this board, the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University has studied and reported on why men avoid marriage. Two reasons include, "An ex-wife will 'take you for all you've got' and 'men have more to lose financially than women.'"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm listening I just don't agree. I don't see the evidence that these are the only or even the primary reasons for men marrying later or not at all. For one thing, women are marrying later or not at all too. So there must be other socio-economic factors involved.
More plausible explanations might be people delaying or deferring children for financial reasons and wanting a higher standard of living in lieu of children. In this case, there is really no compelling reason to get married unless or until one is planning on having children.
The other is the social pressure to invest vastly more resources per child than in times past. More pPeople are going to think long and hard about if or how many children to have and wait until they can meet the social expectations of having children.
For one example, just in the last 15 years or so the expectation on funding a child's college education has changed dramatically. It used to be that only the wealthiest people footed the bill for their kids college education. Nowdays that expectation has become the "norm" in virtually all income groups. In addition, many parents are funding post graduate education.
The 'norm' resource outlay per child has increased dramitically in the last two decades as paren't incomes have risen. Obviously, people who would rather not sign up for this kind of committment or reduce their perceieved obligations by having only one child ... are making other choices.
And we see this phenomenon in all countries, even ones with vastly different marriage cultures and court systmes. For example, the birth rate in countries like Italy, Spain and Japan (where incomes have been rising) have dramatically decreased, so much so that goverments are trying to institute incentives for people to marry and have kids.
On the flip side, the birth rate in Russia is plummeting because of decreased economic opportunities. Government there is offering free houses and other perks to intice people to have kids.
I think this is pretty compelling evidence that people pragmatically decide how to expend their resources. Yes some of it is to obviate unfair divorce settlements, but the worldwide phenomenon of people having fewer children is I think related to people deciding to spend more resources on themselves. Our Western consumerist culture is catching on like wildfire and this is a larger cultural trend.
Children are a long term committment, not like a fancy house or car which you can sell if you get into financial difficulty. I think people are mindful of that moreso today and opting for more fluid obligations instead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm listening I just don't agree.
Ah, I see. When men say they are refusing to marry because marriage and divorce are such horrible deals for men, you choose to believe that they are lying. (This is like when men say they won't go to college because it's so viciously anti-male, and feminists declare that the men aren't going to college because they want to take great paying jobs in the high-tech industry.)
There is no doubt that a number of factors are contributing to the dramatic drop in birth rates in many countries. There is also no doubt that these reasons include, for men, the fact that they face the risk of having their children taken from them, of being the victim of false accusations, of being the victim of paternity fraud, and of being forced under penalty of imprisonment to support the women who kidnapped their children. As I've stated, relative to a man, a woman's risk of being the victim of these atrocities is miniscule to non-existent.
As a good feminist, you choose to ignore or trivialize the atrocities committed against men. Good girl.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, I see. When men say they are refusing to marry because marriage and divorce are such horrible deals for men, you choose to believe that they are lying.
Double strawman! 2 points Thomas
1. All men aren't saying this, some men are.
2. I never said anyone was lying, I just don't accept the starting hypothesis (and that's all it is) that these current legal stipulations (which are different all over the world) is a main or primary reason for men delaying or never marrying and having kids.
(This is like when men say they won't go to college because it's so viciously anti-male, and feminists declare that the men aren't going to college because they want to take great paying jobs in the high-tech industry.)
Yes it is exactly like that because both hypothesis are not proven to be true in a 100% one way or the other. It's more likely a combination of social/economic factors. Hysterical absolutists statements can never be supported by objective research. You'd have to do the actual research and determine the percentage of men who are saying these are the ONLY reasons (either hypothesis) they are choosing not to go to college before you can make such an aboslutist statment.
You've frameworked the debate that either one abosolute hypothesis is correct or the other is. Actually they can neither be correct not because of the content, but because of the absolutism invoked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. All men aren't saying this, some men are.
This is a willful distortion of the facts, in other words it's a lie, Lorrianne. I never stated or implied that all men are saying anything.
This is a typical straw man and a standard feminist tactic. Claim that a man has said something that he hasn't said, and then attack the statement that the man never made.
I never said anyone was lying, I just don't accept the starting hypothesis (and that's all it is) that these current legal stipulations (which are different all over the world) is a main or primary reason for men delaying or never marrying and having kids.
This is another lie on your part.
You claim that you never said anyone was lying. However, when men tell you that this is a main reason for their not getting married, you state that you don't accept that "these current legal stipulations" are a "main or primary reason for men delaying or never marrying and having kids." In other words, when men state that these are primary reasons for their not getting married or having children, you say that the men are lying.
You are willfully trying to confuse matters by playing little games with language. When it's stated that men aren't getting married because of the threats posed by marriage, it clearly doesn't mean that all men are choosing not to get married for these reasons. The statement couldn't mean that, because, quite clearly, some men are getting married.
OK. On to your next round of feminist distortions and lies, Lorrianne.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'd have to do the actual research and determine the percentage of men who are saying these are the ONLY reasons (either hypothesis) they are choosing not to go to college before you can make such an aboslutist statment.
Another bald-faced lie from you, Lorrianne. Where did I state that "these are the ONLY reasons" for men choosing not to go to college?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You claim that you never said anyone was lying. However, when men tell you that this is a main reason for their not getting married, you state that you don't accept that "these current legal stipulations" are a "main or primary reason for men delaying or never marrying and having kids." In other words, when men state that these are primary reasons for their not getting married or having children, you say that the men are lying.
No I'm not lying because "men" (no qualifier means all men) haven't told me what you are saying they have told me. I've read a handful of men saying making this hypothesis. Some men is not all men. Disagreeing with the hypothesis of SOME men is not the same as saying "men" are lying. It is not even saying some men are lying. It is saying I disagree with the hypothesis put forth by "some" men about the their hypothesis being the main reason men are marrying later or not at all.
As usual you blow things all out of proportion Thomas. I laid out my reasons why I think the hypothesis given by SOME men about the ONLY or PRIMARY reasons for men marrying later or not at all are not supportable given all the other social/economic factors involved. In other words, they haven't made a convincing case for their hypothesis.
Anyone can state anything they want. Just because one men or some men say X it doesn't make it am automatically correct hypothesis (nor does if when a woman/women say it). Regardless of the sex of the persons making a claim, they have to make a convincing case using objective facts.
I look carefully at what I read and if it interests me I look into it further. I never make an assumption that something is correct just because someone says it is, much less make that determination based on the person's sex. That would be ridiculous.
In this case, the facts just don't add up given the global nature of the phenomenon and its correlation to economic factors. For one example, we know that when standar of living rises, the birthrate falls and this is a global phenomemon.
Currently Italy and Spain have the lowest birthrates in the world. They don't have our same custody laws and other family law. Therefore men there are surely not basing the decisions to have fewer or no children on the factors that you and others purport.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(This is like when men say they won't go to college because it's so viciously anti-male, and feminists declare that the men aren't going to college because they want to take great paying jobs in the high-tech industry.)
How about here. In this sentence you set up a black/white either/or hypothesese as to why men aren't going to college. This is a common tactic in the so-called gender war to framework the debate inaccurately.
Rhetorically, by your choice of words you imply [all] men think the reason is X and [all] feminists think the reason is Y since you don't allow other permutations of possibilities.
In either case it would be a dubuious claim that men eschew college for the same reason. So stark divergence of only two absolute hypotheses is wholly manufactured and worthless. Even if you said men don't go to college for "primarily" one reason, you'd still have to support that statement with some empirical evidence to back up the "primarily", which neither side as done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"men" (no qualifier means all men)
This is not true, and you know it. I clearly pointed out, in reference to the study by the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University, that two reasons for avoiding marriage are, "An ex-wife will 'take you for all you've got' and 'men have more to lose financially than women.'"
From my statement that these are two reasons it is clear that I am not saying that they are the only reasons. In fact, a quick check on the National Marriage Project will show a number of other reasons. It's quite clear from my statements that there are a variety of reasons for men avoiding marriage. It is also quite clear that some men marry.
Again, I never stated or implied that all men are saying anything or that these are the sole reasons for anything. Either those beliefs are figments of your imagination or you don't believe them and you are willfully telling more feminist lies.
I've read a handful of men saying making this hypothesis.
Correct. Men have told you this.
Just because one men or some men say X it doesn't make it am automatically correct hypothesis.
When men say they aren't getting married because marriage is a horrible thing for a man, and you say you don't believe them, you are calling them liars. If a man said he refused to go up a ladder because he was afraid of heights, if you responded that you didn't believe this was the reason he was refusing the climb the ladder you would be calling him a liar.
Regardless of the sex of the persons making a claim, they have to make a convincing case using objective facts.
When men say that they aren't getting married for certain reasons, they aren't saying that all men are avoiding marriage for those reasons. (No one would say that because we all know that some men get married.) The men, who give those reasons for avoiding marriage, aren't making claims about others, they are saying why they are refusing to get married. If you say that you don't believe this is the reason for their refusing to get married, you are calling them liars.
The rest of your post is scrambled nonsense. You state For one example, we know that when standar of living rises, the birthrate falls and this is a global phenomemon and you have also stated the birth rate in Russia is plummeting because of decreased economic opportunities. So in your mind birth rates are dropping because of increased economic opportunities and because of decreased economic opportunities. I understand now why you're a feminist. Try logic sometime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 08, @08:10PM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas, let me remind you that feminists are marxists (i.e. everything reduces to "socioeconomic"). The feminist way to solving ALL problems is ALWAYS more money for government programs. They are wrong, a good example are the soviet union orphanages. Even though the children in the orphanages were fed and sheltered, most of the children did poor (assuming they actually survived).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rhetorically, by your choice of words you imply [all] men
Your statements with respect to college are absurd. I clearly couldn't mean all men are avoiding college because it's viciously anti-male, because many men chose not to go to college before feminism poisoned the nation's educational institutions.
You're engaging in word games to cover for that fact that, as a feminist, you trivialize the vicious oppression of men and the social ramifications of that oppression.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Readers (if anyone's still bothering to read this thread) should recognize the absurdity of Lorrianne's statements.
Take the statement, "Men are avoiding college and men are going to college." This is a true statement. "Men" does not mean "all men." Lorrianne has invented that claim to draw attention away from the fact that she refuses to recognize the extreme seriousness of the oppression of men.
Feminism. Ceaseless, self-righteous distortions and lies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's another one. "Men are dying from heart disease. Men are dying from cancer. Men are dying from suicide." These are all true statements. They do not state or imply that "all men" are dying from heart disease, "all men" are dying from cancer, and "all men" are dying from suicide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When men say they aren't getting married because marriage is a horrible thing for a man, and you say you don't believe them, you are calling them liars.
If particular men are citing this as their reason, then I have no choice but to belive them. When they impute their personal individual reasons into being a primary reason other men aren't getting married, then I need some objective facts to back up that claim. So far I'm not convinced that these are the primary reasons and I've stated why.
I've clearly laid out my reasons for disagreeing, such as the fact that women are choosing to marry later and have fewer children as well and the cross nationality nature of the phenomenon. If it's happening everywhere you'd have to show corrolary laws in all these places to support that this is the primary reason men make their decisions regarding marriage/family.
I think there are other more likely primary social/economic reasons why people choose to marry latter and have fewer or no children. For example, there is much evidence that rising standard of living and increased levels of education translates into lower birthrates. I would credit these with being the "primary" reasons for the trends we're seeing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not all feminists are marxists/socialists. Many are staunch capitalists and small government proponents.
In addition many male liberals support more money for government programs and greater socialism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's another one. "Men are dying from heart disease. Men are dying from cancer. Men are dying from suicide." These are all true statements. They do not state or imply that "all men" are dying from heart disease, "all men" are dying from cancer, and "all men" are dying from suicide.
Ok Thomas if we take your rhetorical style as the standard then you should have no problem with these statements:
Men commit violent crime.
Men abandon their children.
Men are fat lazy slobs.
Men don't go to college.
----- If you propose that "men" used in a sentence is equivalent to "some men", then all of the above statments are true as written and no one should take it any other way. I'll see if you're consistent on you're theory of using "men" in a sentence in the future.
In fact the way we use words do imply meaning. When saying something disparaging about a category of people is one such case, or if you're making a point about prevalent behaviour of a group or change over time you simply must qualify your remarks with: some, most, more and more, many, a majority, all ... etc. Except in the case of "some" and "many" you must be able to show how you arrived at the qualifier.
For example you could say that the reason SOME men are not attending college is due to the biased nature of the institutions. If you said "most men" you'd have to show how you arrived at that qualifier, like surveys, polls etc.
Saying simply "men" are not going to college for the reason of female bias, is no more factually correct than someone else saying "men" are not going to college because they are taking hi-tech jobs out of high school. Unless you want to allow that others can use the same simple connotation and say "men". In fact some men are getting well paying jobs out of high school .... so under your rhetorical standards, what some feminists are saying about "men" is correct. Why would you have a problem with it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You just keep spewing the same nonsense, Lorrianne. The following are true statements:
Men are dying of cancer. Women are dying of cancer. Men are dying from suicide. Women are dying from suicide. Men commit violent crimes. Women commit violent crimes. Men undertake noble actions. Women undertake noble actions.
You repeat your nonsensical argument to draw attention away from the fact that you trivialize the oppression of men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only way to infer results for a population... other than querying every member, is to take a statistical sample. It's very difficult to prove anything when in order for your results to be accepted you need 100% sampling.
I don't understand what you mean by "Objective facts". Typically a cursory review of statistical methods will provide error numbers and also a "gut feel" regarding the rigor of the project.
It sounds to me you're rejecting a study and saying that it's not representative of the population, without even reviewing it's statistical methods. Thomas' statements were referenced to a Rutgers University study, did you review their methods and find them faulty?
Some Universities are well known for poorly executed Advocacy research, but every instance of this I've seen has been absurdly feminist biased, not the other way around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here we are again... The Surgeon General might make the legitimate statement, "Men are dying from suicide. Women are dying from suicide. Children are dying from suicide. We must undertake a national effort to address and alleviate this problem."
Your claims that this necessarily means "all men," "all women," and "all children" is self-serving nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm going to go over this again, to have it clear on the record.
The statement, "Young boys are dying from suicide," could mean that some young boys are dying from suicide, or it could mean that all young boys are dying from suicide.
When I make the statement, "Young boys are dying from suicide," any reasonable person, who knows me at all, knows that I mean some young boys are dying from suicide.
When I make statements such as, "Men are avoiding college for the following reasons," and "Men are avoiding marriage for the following reasons," any reasonable person, who knows me at all, knows that I mean some men are avoiding college and some men are avoiding marriage. This is clear because I am well aware of the fact that some men go to college and some men marry. Therefore, I would not say that all men are avoiding marriage or college.
The claim that I mean all men in the statements, "Men are avoiding college for the following reasons," and "Men are avoiding marriage for the following reasons," is completely an invention of our resident feminist, Lorrianne. She's well aware of the fact that I know some men get married and some men go to college.
It's worth noting, however, that when feminists make statements such as "Men are rapists," they often mean all men. They just want to preserve what they feel is plausible deniability. They can insinuate all men, while later claiming that they mean some men.
Lorrianne is just engaging in her usual distortions.
Call this ad hoc, if you will Lorrianne, but when someone lies about me, I point out that their statement is a lie and that they are a liar.
Get help, Lorrianne.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 08, @11:41PM EST (#37)
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Thomas, stop being so hysterical. Get over the fact that you're just a man, who of course, wouldn't have even just a smidgen of knowledge about why 'some' men aren't getting married (being a man and all).
And, also I'd like to point out that I'm a male who 'feels' that marriage seems like a frustrating cruel joke when women castigate us for not wanting to commit, while women don't have the same risks for making the same commitment. In fact they have some things to gain by braking that very commitment. But of course I'm also just a male whose thoughts and fears about marriage are worthless and meaningless since, obviously, not 'Every' male feels the way I do.
Aaron
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 08, @11:51PM EST (#38)
|
|
|
|
|
"when feminists make statements such as "Men are rapists," they often mean all men. They just want to preserve what they feel is plausible deniability. They can insinuate all men, while later claiming that they mean some men."
yeah, this is so true.
Aaron
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The tangent we went off on Thomas was language. It's obvious you have double standards when it comes to not qualifying your statements about groups of people. In short you are not consistent.
If you mean some men you should type it. It's only 4 extra letters. The other choice is to allow the equivalent meaning when your dreaded "feminists' use the same rhetorical device you do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"when feminists make statements such as "Men are rapists," they often mean all men. They just want to preserve what they feel is plausible deniability. They can insinuate all men, while later claiming that they mean some men."
Oh really? Do all feminists do that or some feminists? :)
Obiously SOME masculinist resort to these bait and switch tactics too as Thomas did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 09, @12:08AM EST (#42)
|
|
|
|
|
"knowledge about why 'some' men aren't getting married"
Since, someone might say " we're talking about birth rates, not marriage, I feel I need to clarify myself. "I" personally would 'like' to be married if I had children. That would be ideally. Marriage and having children are still very much related by a large portion of the population and not wanting to get married has an effect of one not wanting children. (just in case that what I've written gets literally scrutinized)
Aaron
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 09, @12:15AM EST (#43)
|
|
|
|
|
"Oh really? Do all feminists do that or some feminists? :)"
Actually I have no problem with this, why you say? Because feminism is a chosen ideology whose most outspoken members SAY and DO these things while the small mass of those who make up your average feminists DON'T speak up and 'tacitly' go along with them and benfeit from the hate, while at the same time say "but that's not my feminism!"
And anyways, you lorianne are the one who is imposing it on US to say 'some' when it is clearly implied. And by your insistance on going on and on about these trivial matters says something about how much men activists are getting inside you. ha
Aaron
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 09, @12:40AM EST (#44)
|
|
|
|
|
"And anyways, you lorianne are the one who is imposing it on US to say 'some' when it is clearly implied."
From my "experience" talking to feminists who have struck up (ie. I wasn't looking for these feminists) conversations about men and rape it is conistantly implied that all "men are rapists" for the majority of the time when feminists say that "men are rapists" (wink, wink, nod nod). A philosphy that 'can' teach that all men are potential rapists, even boys, and that all men benefit from women being raped so that we can hold them down in subjagation economically, emotionally, physically, whatever, and that the majority of self identified feminists don't speak out against this sexist ideology that represents them, and the ones that do speak out are ostracisized, is it any wonder how men would be able to make the claim that feminists think that 'men are rapists'? Is it really that big of a leap for men to see this as a sexist grouping?
By the way the vast majority of men despise rapists.
Aaron
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 09, @12:46AM EST (#45)
|
|
|
|
|
"You repeat your nonsensical argument to draw attention away from the fact that you trivialize the oppression of men."
Exactly, and if men were doing this. It would most definitely be said that it was because we didn't want to give our power and priveliges.
Aaron
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When I say something like, "Men do this and such," she shouldn't assume this means all men. The assumption is hers.
As has been made abundantly clear, Lorianne is a pathological liar. She is a feminist.
But I repeat myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obiously SOME masculinist resort to these bait and switch tactics too as Thomas did.
As Lorrianne, the feminist, well knows, I never engaged in a bait and switch. She took a statement that could, in isolation, could mean either all men or some men, but that in context clearly meant some men. She then declared that it meant all men, knowing that she way lying, and attacked the statement that was clearly never made.
You enjoy trying to cause pain, Lorrianne, but I am far too used to such feminist tactics to be moved by them. Unfortunately, I would guess that, with the feminist mob, you might still be somewhat successful. Very sad.
Seek help. You suffer from a terrible spiritual disease -- feminism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aaron said
And anyways, you lorianne are the one who is imposing it on US to say 'some' when it is clearly implied. And by your insistance on going on and on about these trivial matters says something about how much men activists are getting inside you. ha
How right you are, bro. She's a very sad individual. Unfortunately, far too many women and even many men believe the type of lies that she relentlessly spews.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is it really that big of a leap for men to see this as a sexist grouping?
The overwhelming majority of feminists devote themselves to promoting hatred, lies, and oppression. There are a very few, who have some reasonable things to say, and who claim to be feminists, but this is a terrible flaw in their minds and souls. If you accept that some feminism is good, you have opened the door for obfuscations and then for the hatred. Feminism is evil. It is the most insidious evil that humans have ever devised. It is not the case that there is good evil and bad evil. There is only bad evil.
It should be clear to all that Lorrianne is a feminist liar. Disputing matters with her will accomplish nothing, unless one uses the dispute to discredit the evil. Note her distortions and outright lies. They are typical of feminists. Learn to combat them.
As with German National Socialism, feminism must be destroyed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, now I've finished work for the day, and I've caught up on the cat fight with the feminist liar.
Time for beddy bye. Night all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No I'm not lying because "men" (no qualifier means all men) haven't told me what you are saying they have told me.
Okay, here's what a man is telling you:
I won't get married ever, ever again. I refuse to become involved with a woman beyond a casual sexual relationship. I've gotten a vasectomy. I often use the services of prostitutes (Though a little higher class that a drugged up streetwalker) because I prefer it to be just business.
Why?
Because I don't want to get raped by the laws. I prefer to pay for my sex up front, not later.
I don't want to lose a house and home I have worked for to some woman because she decides she's unfulfilled.
I don't want to be the emotional tampon for some neurotic post-modern bitch.
Children? I have no rights as a man when concerns any children I might father anymore. I learned this already. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Pass. I'm not the sperm donor for some frantic pheminut's need to be fulfilled in "motherhood." Find another sucker, lady. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.
Is that plain enough for you?
And no, I'm not lonely. I get more pu$$y now than when I cared about whether I got it or not. I go plaves, I entertain, I read, I write, I work in my workshop. When I get home, I make what I want for dinner. If I leave the seat up, so what? If I leave the cap off the toothpaste, so what? If I toss my shirt over the couch, or leave my socks in a ball until the morning, so what? I have no "delicates" hanging in my john like swamp moss. I have no meaningless sitabouts (You know, stupid little cutesy figurines which serve no rational purpose) cluttering the place up.
I come when I want. I go when I want. I don't justify any facet of my existance to anyone, and I don't have to be nice to some dippy broad who I really don't like in the morning.
Every dime I make is mine, with nobody to spend it on nonsense like a new couch when I have one that is clean, reasonably new, and perfectly serviceable. I don't get nagged. I don't get emotionally ambushed.
Now, what could a woman possibly offer me to get me to give up my freedom? Sex? I get that. Play again? Companionship? I have plenty of friends, without the baggage that goes with a "relationship." And better yet, if they're being asswipes, I can tell them so, and it isn't a week long drama over my "insensitivity" or some other chumped up psychotwaddle.
I get to keep a very correct politeness with those women I socialize with, and those who I work with adhere to a businesslike formality or not at all. Everyone knows those rules. Unlike a "relationship," they don't get made up as whimsy strikes.
So you go right ahead with your statistical masturbation. BFHD. But I'll riddle you this, Batgirl, the next time some of your hen friends are whining and moaning about how men are all "commitmentphobes" and "where are they?" I will tell you where: Ya'll made us commitmentphobes. And we're off having a beer or something, or otherwise engaged in the things men do - and we don't miss ya a bit.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From my "experience" talking to feminists who have struck up (ie. I wasn't looking for these feminists) conversations about men and rape it is conistantly implied that all "men are rapists
And that is just as irrational as it is wrong!
So why shouldn't we speak up anytime anyone says anything that implies that a humongous category of people (like 3.3 billion males or 3.3 billion females) are ______ (fil in the blank). Why let it pass? A person with integrity will call people doing that anytime they see it, hear it, read it, regardless if the comment is in favor of their "group" or not.
It simply makes no logical sense to imply that "men" do things the same way or for the same reasons. Therefore it becomes a matter of statistical evaluation. Broad generalizations and stereotyping are just as irrational, unsupportable and wrong when feminists do it as it is when anyone else does it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 09, @02:06PM EST (#58)
|
|
|
|
|
"It simply makes no logical sense to imply that "men" do things the same way or for the same reasons."
No one did this, you assumed it. You created this HUGE debate, while ignoring the fact that a lot of men (men here as well, who have told you) won't marry and procreate because of female privilege, even evidence was given that these ARE reasons why men won't marry.
"So why shouldn't we speak up anytime anyone says anything that implies that a humongous category of people"
Because grouping ALL men in with rapists is about HATE and is very detrimental to mens/boys feelings and self esteem. An argument about Saying "some men" rather than "men" having fears of marrying because they very well might have their children taken away from them and house and also have to pay alimony for her choice to leave is very trivial indeed and could be construed as a way to deflect the discussion of the thread.
"Therefore it becomes a matter of statistical evaluation. Broad generalizations and stereotyping are just as irrational, unsupportable and wrong when feminists do it as it is when anyone else does it."
Good then when your "sisters" say this about men I hope you're just as vocal about sexist male hatred and bashing and expend the same amount of time and energy fighting stereotypes of men that feminists have. I doubt that you will. No one said ALL men about anything here, but YOUR assumptions that were taken out of context did.
Now that this is over. Why don't YOU do anything about these discriminations that happen to men? Seeing as you're for equality between the sexes and all. And why don't YOU even want to admit and discuss your privileges? Why so quickly brush over this and expend so much energy denying your privileges by blowing smoke over these disadvantages with procreation and marriage for men by debating over the word "SOME"?
You have added nothing to this whole thread, but ignore and 'try' to prevent any meaningfull discussion to mens fears of marriage and procreation.
Aaron
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It simply makes no logical sense to imply that "men" do things the same way or for the same reasons.
No one here made such an implication on this thread. You only imagine that someone here did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"It simply makes no logical sense to imply that "men" do things the same way or for the same reasons."
No one did this, you assumed it. You created this HUGE debate, while ignoring the fact that a lot of men (men here as well, who have told you) won't marry and procreate because of female privilege, even evidence was given that these ARE reasons why men won't marry.
Your entire post is beautifully put, Aaron. It's good to have your input.
Lorrianne knows no one made such an implication, and her argument was an attempt to deflect the discussion. From the context of what I wrote, it was clear that I didn't mean "all men," when I wrote "men." She has gifted us with yet another display of the relentless dishonesty of feminists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Would allowing a female to become pregnant using my sperm be the stupidest and most self-destructive thing that I could possibly do?
This comment in the lead off (which has nothing to do with the attached article by the way) deliberately implies that women will do something "destructive" to men. I makes no mention of the millions of men who have not been "destroyed" by procreating with a woman. The goal is smearing all women pure and simple.
I'll say again, if it is wrong for feminists to imply that all men are _______ (fill in the blank) then it is wrong for anyonen to do the same thing. Its hyperbolic scaremongering rhetoric, the very same verbal tactics many radical feminists use to impute guilt to all men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Would allowing a female to become pregnant using my sperm be the stupidest and most self-destructive thing that I could possibly do?
This comment in the lead off (which has nothing to do with the attached article by the way) deliberately implies that women will do something "destructive" to men.
No. It doesn't. It emphasizes the fact that such a relationship makes it possible for a woman to do something destructive to a man. The probability of the woman doing such a destructive thing to a man is about 30%.
I know I won't convince Lorrianne, so I write this for open minded readers.
Imagine a contract between white people and black people. The contract offers the possibility to blacks of gaining something that they might want. But if a black person enters into such a contract with a white person, that white person can at anytime break the contract and enslave the black person. It would make sense for black people to ask, "Would entering into this contract be the stupidest and most self-destructive thing that I could possibly do?"
This question would in no way state or imply that all white people were evil. It would, however, emphasize the outrageous risks involved for blacks who enter into the contract.
Lorrianne loves to make false accusations. She's a true feminist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The probability of the woman doing such a destructive thing to a man is about 30%.
Provided, of course, he lets her get into such a position of power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
..... and what "destructive things" are included in this 30%? Where did you come up with this number and what does it refer to exactly?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and what "destructive things" are included in this 30%?
Taking the man's children, and forcing him to support the person who took his children.
Where did you come up with this number and what does it refer to exactly?
I here borrow from AU on another thread. (The following are rough figures for the probability of a woman taking a man's children from him. The percentage rates for the man having to support the person, who kidnapped his children, may be somewhat different.)
50% divorce rate, 70-80% of divorces initiated by women, women get primary custody of the children some 95% of the time, when custody is disputed.
.5 x .7 x .95 = .33
.5 x .8 x .95 = .38
The probability of a woman perpetrating this atrocity on a man, if he allows her to become pregnant using his sperm and they dispute custody (if he allows her to gain that power over him), are roughly 0.3 to 0.4.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This comment in the lead off (which has nothing to do with the attached article by the way)
Read it again, it has a great deal to do with the article. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, one of the reasons men avoid marriage is because the realize their is a high probability of their lives being ruined if and when the woman leaves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I found this:
Between 1970 and 1994, the proportion of persons aged 30 to 34 who had never married tripled from 6 to 20 percent for women and from 9 to 30 percent for men. For those aged 35 to 39, the corresponding increases were 5 to 13 percent and 7 to 19 percent.
Meaning the percent increase in never married persons was equal (70% increase) for both sexes. While more men never marry, this was true historically. The crucial factor is percent increase over time to show correlation. The percent increase over time is the same as for women.
I'm trying to find another source which shows the percent increase over a longer time span.
http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:IOaX0HVPjEMC: www.pop.psu.edu/general/pubs/working_papers/psu-pr i/wp0012.pdf+percentage+men+never+marrying+over+ti me&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would agree except this particualar article specifically states :
"men at every stage of their life less likely to have a child than women"
In the past you could use the dissimilar age at marriage argument, but these days most people marry someone close to their age... so another force is at work here.
Women are indeed putting off having children... but this study apparently suggests that men are putting it off longer or even permanently.
Interestingly, feminists themselves have made statements in back handed support of this. Sadly I forget the specific individual (perhaps some other reader recalls), but I recall one bemoaning that men must be intimidated by "powerful liberated" women because she couldn't find one willing to risk his entire future to get married and have kids with her.
Of course she was sure to suggest that this was a male inadequacy and not her own. LOL!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These are good points. But I think both men and women are delaying marriage and children, or deliberately having fewer childrn or no children for other social reasons, namely increased standard of living. Even though we have fewer children these days, the expectation is to spend a great deal of capital on them (time and money) moreso than the per/child resource expenditure of previous generations.
People today have come to expect a higher standard of living than previous generations and they rightly realize that having children will have a huge impact on that standard as well as how they spend their time. Therefore, they are having fewer kids, or putting it off indefinetly to accumlate wealth, travel, higher education, increased medical care, better food, more enterataiment, more material possessions, etc.
Incidently, I know two couples recently married where one partner was never married and the other partner was and has grown kids. These people are in their mid to late 50's and enjoy traveling, eating out, cultural activities, lots of nice possessions, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As I stated in an earlier post:
A man faces the risk of having his children taken from him, of being the victim of false accusations, of being the victim of paternity fraud, of being forced under penalty of imprisonment to support the person who kidnapped his children. Relative to a man, a woman's risk of being the victim of these atrocities is miniscule to non-existent.
It would be difficult to exaggerate the importance of these facts, though feminists can be counted on to ignore them or to pretend that they are irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not ignoring these reasons, I just think you are greatly exagerating them in relation to other more widespread cultural changes that society has undergone, namely the consumer culture of acquiring more things and living a higher lifestyle. Something has to give, and people are choosing instead to spend their resources (time and money) on other things than establishing a traditional family.
For example, my husband and I initially wanted 2 or 3 kids but we changed our minds and decided one was enough. We consciously choose to have only one child because we sat down and looked at the obligations involved in having more and decided we didn't want to sign up for that much "debt load" based on the lifestyle that we wanted to live and what we wanted to give our children. We wanted to continue to travel, to retire early if possible, and still send our child(ren) to college. We set pencil to paper and quickly saw something was going to have to give. If we had different priorities, we would have had more children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The birth rate for women fell in Russia as the economy tanked. It fell in Japan as the economy dropped into a severe, prolonged recession and has continued to decline (to 50% of replacement rate) throughout that continuing economic malaise. It fell in the US as the economy took off and rode high for years. It plummetted in France while the economy stagnated. The collapse in birth rates has also occurred well after the introduction of safe, efficient, inexpensive birth control and abortion.
Something(s) is causing the collapse in birth rates, and it isn't improved economic opportunity (Russia vs. US) or the introduction of birth control (which happened well before the collapse).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, something is causing it or a combination of somethings. It seems odd to me that two of the countries which have very traditional marriage/family values intergral in their culture and also a strong anti-contraceptive, anti-abortion religious background (Italy and Spain), have by far the lowest birth rates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, something is causing it or a combination of somethings.
And it is not the economy. The collapse has occurred in countries irrespective of their economic conditions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And it is not the economy. The collapse has occurred in countries irrespective of their economic conditions.
Not exactly true. The most developed countries have the sharpest decline in birthrates (relative to non-developed countries). Obviously economics and standard of living has a great deal to do with decliniing birthrates, though I would also include higher levels of education.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The most developed countries have the sharpest decline in birthrates (relative to non-developed countries). Obviously economics and standard of living has a great deal to do with decliniing birthrates, though I would also include higher levels of education.
You ignore the other differences between developed and undeveloped countries. The developed countries are far more poisoned by feminism. There is little doubt in my mind that this lies at the root of collapsing population. It is not economics. There's no consistency based on economics. The primary, root cause is the poisoning of male-female relations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I doubt your conclusions. If anything has "poisoned" developing countries then why are people fogging into them? I dont' see a people emmigrating in droves to countries where feminism and relative equality between the sexes isn't present.
I don't see Western men emmigrating to other coutnries free of "feminism" but I sure see the opposite happening. If our culture is so poisoned as you claim, why is that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If anything has "poisoned" developing countries then why are people fogging into them? I dont' see a people emmigrating in droves to countries where feminism and relative equality between the sexes isn't present.
Are you truly that ignorant? There are the other, many great aspects of western civilization. And the basis for all of them was in place before the spiritual disease of feminism reared its hateful head.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IMO dropping birth rates because of standards of living, and because of feminism are about equally valid. Which is to say that neither are supported by good research. There are WAY too many variables involved to say that it IS one or ISN'T the other... so I doubt them both as singular resons.
In all likelyhood it's a combination of factors that includes aspects of both. Of course this doesn't reduce the fact that feminism is pushing successful men (those who have the most to lose) away from procreating... and this is a big (and getting bigger) problem. Societal changes could be thought of as a natural change to human behavior brought on by advances in society (and thus be a normal and acceptable behavior). But an atmosphere of fear is a huge negative for society and needs to be addressed (irregardless of wether it's a singular cause or a contributing factor)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 09, @02:36PM EST (#59)
|
|
|
|
|
This is remo, here, but I didn't feel like signing in,as I forgot my password.
Does't it occur to you, Lorianne, that some of us have considered leaving? But where would we go? Most other 'civilized' countries have laws similar to US as far as male/female relations. Indeed, Canada, Australia, and Britain are far worse!
Anyway, there are two other obstacles even if we found a place to go. One is monetary, the second is that its very easy to enter the US legally or illegally, and comparatively speaking, very easy to become a citizen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
feminism and relative equality between the sexes isn't present.
Feminism and relative equality between the sexes are polar opposites. Feminism is sexist hate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
as an addendum I would submit that this phenomena also goes against Natural Selection... and this also is indicitive of a significant failure of public policy in the developed world over the last half century.
We've created societies where "The Fittest" are being punished for procreating (in no small part due to feminist successes and excesses)... and so they're NOT. Go against the way the Universe demands all creatures evolve for too long and risk the wrath of Mother Nature (and she's a cruel mistress).
I have no idea what the long term consequences will be, but this is unprecedented and I find it hard to see how any good can come of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does't it occur to you, Lorianne, that some of us have considered leaving? But where would we go? Most other 'civilized' countries have laws similar to US as far as male/female relations.
Does this even make sense? Our laws are what makes us "civilised". Not that our system is perfect but is there a reason why you'd only consider moving to another "civilised" country? I submit you you only mentioned moving to another civilised country precisely because on the whole (which can never be perfect) our laws in so-called "civilised" countries are conducive to a good life.
You're chasing your tail. The enire reason why so many people are clamouring to get into "civilised" Western countries is precisely because of the relative freedoms we do have. And that comes part and parcel with the freedom of other do some things we may not like or condone. That's part of the mix! You can't have a "civilised" totalitarian country in which one gets everything his/her way!
This is the whole problem with moral/social relativists. They claim all this freedom is corrupting and intoxicates people to take advantage of others ... and this is partially true .... but the flip side would be inflexible, rigid control at someone else's behest.
I submit that every successful civilization relative to others of its time had one common ingredient, more equity among the greatest possible number of people. In the West and particularly in the USA, that includes women and all races ... which thought it causes some strife and clashing of "rights" creates the conditions which make us the most successful "civilized" nation on earth, the one so many people want to get into! And we can't have that without the tumult and scrambing over "rights".
I submit that feminism and civil rights put us into the stratisphere of success as no other two movements in the history of mankind has done, not because of anything in particular great about women or particular races, but only because it allowed the greatest possible number of poeple (sheer numbers) the opportunity to participate.
In short, cultures which practice any form of caste system, be it by sex or race or religion, whatever .... ARE NOT AS SUCCESSFUL as cultures which eliminate caste systems. This was the greatest triumph of feminism and civil rights ... again, not that women and racial groups were so special in and of themselves, but it simply eliminated barriers to masses of people joining in the fray! This is precisely WHY we are such a 'civilised' country.
Where else would you go besides the handful of countries who have largely eliminated caste systems?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 10, @11:07AM EST (#72)
|
|
|
|
|
Remo again, ask me to verify when I sign in :) *poet and didn't know it*
Thanks for replying Lorianne. But I really do feel you missed several points.
Your in another thread bemoaning that CA decision along with the rest of us. What you can't see is how these things intersect to provide a hostile enviroment for female/male relations.
Anyway, 'feminist jurisprudance' along with other group/gender conscious laws is rapidly undermining the concept of individual rights and responsibilities. Some of us (like myself) see this battle is nearly ineivatably lost. Not that I don't plan on trying, but I do think I'll fail. Whether we will have a revolution or a tyranny or possibly both, I don't know. Things look pretty bleak. And I don't consider a country 'civilized' because it has tons of new laws. Nazi Germany had tons of laws and very cool uniforms/artwork to boot. It's the equal application of the laws, and the philosophical basis for those laws that I judge a country by. And ours fails, compared to say, 1970. Btw this isn't all the fault of some feminists, but the more radical ones have had a big part in it.
Anyway, you forgot my other points anyway. There are few countries that I'd want to go to, and ALL countries (practically any country you could pick anywhere in the world) have harder immigration controls then the USA. So , even if say, I wanted to go to Sweden, or Switzerland, what are the odds they'd take me, and how long would it take?
And thats not counting the monetary cost, and having to leave my relatives behind in the USA. No, I'm pretty much a prisoner here.
Anyway, thanks for responding. Have a great week.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.ed-u.com/birth-rates-order-low.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... period. Male fools, that is. Females still want marriage and kids because it's their ticket. Men should not get married or have kids. The risk is simply too great.
No surprise to read this in the Aus. Herald as well:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/07/10415664 09557.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For those who are bothering to read the repeated distortions made by Lorrianne and my responses to those distortions, here's something from another thread on this BB.
Lorrianne stated, with respect to men and women working in some other countries, I very rarely saw men "working" there doing farming, construction etc (other than army patrols) at any time of of the day. I saw lots of men sitting about chatting, drinking tea or walking leisurely about... After about age 12 I didn't see boys working but rather walking around in groups socializing.
She also stated, Most of the people working small farms (I'd call them more large gardens) were women and older children, mostly girls. Women were also selling the produce in markets. Older women watch the young children while younger women worked. I saw many pregnant women working outdoors. Even nuns in a convent worked dawn to dusk in the gardens... In nomadic areas it was the women and young children who I observed tending the animals being shepherds. Young girls also sold melons and nuts in the markets.
Then, when challenged on her statements about "layabout" men, she claimed with respect to the above statements this is not saying men are layabouts.
I'm wondering, is there anyone here who fails to see that this is bald-faced lying?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorrianne, Aaron asked you Why don't YOU do anything about these discriminations that happen to men? Seeing as you're for equality between the sexes and all. And why don't YOU even want to admit and discuss your privileges?
You say in this thread, Lorrianne, I submit that every successful civilization relative to others of its time had one common ingredient, more equity among the greatest possible number of people. In the West and particularly in the USA, that includes women and all races
You claim to be an egalitarian of some sort, to support some sort of equity. Here's a question for you (I'd enjoy seeing some links that you, no doubt, can easily supply).
What are the links to discussions and arguments that you've had with women, who demonize men for not accepting responsibility for their children, where you've put great energy into criticizing the women for having abortions and for supporting access to abortions? I'm not asking where you've paid lip service to opposing abortion. (You often pay lip service to opposing abortion on this board, and then go on to lecture men about how they need to accept responsibility for their actions.)
I'm asking where you have argued at length with women who support a "woman's right to abortion", and told those women why abortion is a terrible act and that they need to accept responsibility for their actions?
What are the links?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wasting your breath, Thomas.
I must say I am amused that Lorianne is moving to the same "Love it or Leave it" arguments that were presented back in the sixties to the hippies - ergo, me. Yep, I'm proof that if a man ain't liberal at 20 he has no heart, but I also proved I have a brain by the time I was 40.
Those arguments are as vacuous now as they were then, and even more tired.
Posting links - let's face it, T, I could fabricate such a list for her - So even were such a list presented, I wouldn't be impressed without some proof that it was her.
And you don't have to wait long in most cases before Lorriane slips; as she gets more shrill and strident her true colors show. Rememeber the old "I'm not a feminist!" claim from a few months back - peek back a few messages and see how she says feminism (and civil rights) has been the salvation of this country - or words to that effect.
Hmm. Since this country was ascendant until the 60's, and on the decline since, it sure coincides with the rise of pheminism...but I digress.
I wonder why it's never been commented on by her how Scotty G. opens the boards here; but go to the poheminist boards and you've got to go through authorization, checks, no yahoo or hotmail emails, verify you're a woman - and then if you post something that disagrees with the current wisdom, you're booted.
I can't think of a single men's board that behaves that way, but the vast and overwhelming majority of women's boards - that aren't fluff centers - do act like that. It's probably because men are more fair minded, but as well due to the fact that the consensus seeking nature of the female psyche abhors a different point of view, and tends to see a differing point of view as a personal attack - and hence, the urge to correct people, use shaming tactics, and act like a mother hen, rather than engage in real dialogue.
Most women aren't reflective thinkers, precisely because they are taught and socialized not to be. Her statements on civil rights and pheminism is characteristic of this lack of reflective thought; if her ilk thought for one moment they would quickly see that the hatred and backlash engendered by the "civil rights" and pheminist movements is not directed at the bettering of the plights of blacks and women - it's that inflicting pain on whites and men is a part of the equation.
That's the thing - the revenge element, the payback. Suffer now, you bastard! ??? I never owned a slave in my life, but I'm treated like I'm Simon LaGree[sic]. And I'm a perfect male chauvinist rat bastard right now, and a great deal of that is sheer cussed orneriness based on the thought that I'm going to be treated like one anyway, might as well enjoy it.
Anyway, Thomas, Keep the faith.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wasting your breath, Thomas.
I know I won't get any facts through to Lorriane, she is, after all, a feminist. But I don't allow people to lie about me without responding.
Rememeber the old "I'm not a feminist!" claim from a few months back - peek back a few messages and see how she says feminism (and civil rights) has been the salvation of this country - or words to that effect.
I don't remember her claiming that she isn't a feminist, TGK, but she clearly is a pathological liar -- a true feminist.
even were such a list presented, I wouldn't be impressed without some proof that it was her.
The feminist says that she normally posts as "Lorriane." I'd like to see an online discussion, that already exists, where she's taken women to task for supporting the alleged "right to abortion."
That's the thing - the revenge element, the payback.
That's one of the things that I love about feminism. The conviction that because some female's great grandfather allegedly oppressed my great grandmother, that female now supposedly has the right to oppress me. (Never mind that, historically, men and women generally had different roles, but the men's roles were no less oppressive than the women's.)
Anyway, Thomas, Keep the faith.
Don't worry. I will. I'm used to combatting the evil known as feminism. I've been doing it for decades. Thanks for the words of support, though. They're appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geez I've argued against abortion for years on many many forums and in real life. Most recently I guess you can go look under Lorianne at:
Free Republic
Atlantic Monthly
New York Times
Slate
ifeminists
longer ago:
Time Online (before it folded)
The most vicious pro-abortion women (and men) I've encountered are on the New York Times message board. They are the most closed minded to any argument no matter how reasonable to implementing measures to reduce abortion by even non-legal means. They are well beyond pro-Choice and blatantly pro-abortion. Many even advocate forced mandated abortion for teenagers and poor people! If you want to talk fascists, go there.
I guess I'd lay say some of my most fervent and productive debates with semi-reasonable people (who facilitate a real discussion not just screaming) would be on Atlantic Monthly.
I've also debated the abortion issue at lenght on Ms., Salon and other forums under different monikers which I don't care to reveal.
In short, about 5 years ago I decided go public about abortion and come out of the closet as pro-Life. As a woman, and a feminist woman, it has not been an easy thing to do. I started out online first and then I "came out" in real life with friends and family. I've met with a lot of hostility. Even so, I believe there are many women with pro-Life feelings who are terrified and intimidated by other women's virulent hostility on the issue. Many of them are young and not ready yet "come out". I don't blame them at all for being timid for now, some of them will muster the courage to say what they truly feel at some point. There is no other issue where women (and pro-Choice men too) can be as hostile. But this is slowly changing. More and more people are at least questioning a lot of what has gone on in abortion politics and recent practicies, the lies and distortions and strong-arming done in the name of "choice".
Most feminists, even the ones most open to diversity of ideas, simply will not accept that one can be pro-woman and anti-abortion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geez I've argued against abortion for years on many many forums and in real life.
It would be great if you'd supply links. In any case, if you've truly argued with pro-choicers, then I commend you on having some balance and consistency. I wish you'd give some credence to men on this forum, when they say they won't marry because the believe it would be one of the stupidest things that they could do, or that they won't go to college because the nation's educational institutions are bastions of anti-male hate (a debate from many months ago).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geez I've argued against abortion for years on many many forums and in real life.
An easy claim to make. (Was The Gonzo Kid right?)
I just did a quick search through the Atlantic forum and didn't see where you lecture women that abortion is a terrible act and that they need to accept responsibility for their actions. (The way you lecture men that they need to accept responsibility for their actions.) Please supply links to the debates where you've told women to accept responsibility for their actions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas, I'm not going to go around finding links. It would take hours if not days. I estimate I've made over 5,000 posts on the subject of abortion, probably more. The common fundemental theme to my position, and I've made the same point here many times, is that conception is the default consequence of sex, and that both parties accept that risk when they engage in sex. From that point, I go on to argue that both people (and that would include the woman) should take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
Then of course I've made many many posts on the ethics/morality of abortion as well, but the fundemental starting position is absoloutely 100% equal responsibiity in procreation. I can assure you, MANY women do not like to hear this point of view and become very very hostile over it. Positively apoplectic some of them. But neither do many men like itand get very hostile as well, as you have seen on this very forum. In that respect there is a common reaction by men and women when someone suggests they are responsible for the consequences of their actions.
I always make the point in tandem that BOTH parties to conception share equal responsibility. I have never made the point that only one party is responsible, nor will I as this would be illogical based on biology.
I don't moderate my opinions by who I'm talking with. Although I'm a feminist, I will not say things just to get along with other feminists, particularly on abortion (though I do cop to doing that when I was younger). Although I have Conservative leanings, I call Conservatives to task if they try to weasel out of their own "personal responsibility" mantra.
I've gotten in similar hot water when argueing with feminists over "date rape" when I argue that the woman is partially to blame for putting herself in the situation. But there again, I also hold a man partially to blame for putting himself in a position to be accused of date rape. My position is that two people can interpret the same situation differently, and they are responsible to look after themselvs and be careful what positions they put themselves in and take at least partial responsibility for putting themselves in that situation. Women don't like to hear this, and men don't either. Unfortunately, many people do not like to believe that they are responsible, even in part, for their own actions. This is a social disease infecting our society that is larger in scope than this discussion we are having.
In any case, I don't have to prove to you how many feminists I've tangled with over these and many other issues :) Just because someone says they're a feminist, I don't make assumptions that they have really personally thought through their positions with critical thinking. Like most people, many (and I'd even say most) feminists are really just sheep who don't investigate or think for themselves issue by issue. They just adopt a whole "package" since its easier than thinking.
By the way, there are some pro-Choice feminists who make compelling arguments. One can easily differentiate these people as having done the mental work to reach their positions and who are not just regurgitating ideology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not asking where you say you oppose abortion, I'm asking where you rail against pro-choice women. You've said on another thread on this board, "I can hear fatuous blowhard integrity-free hypocrites just fine. And I know where to find their inevitable friends .... in Nigeria and Afghanistan, stoning women for the same exact act as a man who goes free."
Where, on a board with pro-choice women, do you make similar statements about women who support abortion. Do you tell them that they are "blowhard integrity free hypocrites" and that you know where to find them, in all too many American homes where women murder their children.
You're oh, so ready to say you oppose abortion and then to rail against men. Where do you say you oppose abortion and then, to their faces, rail against pro-choice women. (Not against abortion, against the women.) If you don't do this, you are a hypocrite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do it all the time but I'm not going to go chasing down out of thousands of posts to find you an example. Go to other boards yourself and find them.
I "rail" against pro-Choice women (and men) and call them hypocrites when they make it clear they are patently against "choice" because they want to force all women in to believing abortion is ok and are hostile to crisis pregnancy centers which try to help women making the "choice" that they don't like.
I rail agains pro-"Choice" women (and men) when they say they support forcing teens and poor women to undergo abortion and call them hypocrites about "choice". I also rail against pro-"choice" hypocrites who don't think China's population policies are justified. I find it striking that many pro-"choice" people are quite willing to forego "choice" for population control.
I'm also on their case for promoting abortion overseas through the UN in countries were women have made it clear they don't want or need abortion and for hamstringing family planning and other health services to women by their dogged insistence on abotion language. I've called them hypocrites for holding up UN funding from the US only for their abortion agenda. You can probably find some of these posts on New York Times or on The Atlantic if you want to go look through thousands of posts.
Some of them may be in topics not specifically about abortion but where these subjects came up in the course of discussing other issues.
In any case, I doubt you'd go hunt up specific posts from other websites where about specific points on my insistence. By the way, what other sites do you post on?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Correction:
I also rail against pro-"choice" hypocrites who think China's population policies are justified.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I doubt you'd go hunt up specific posts from other websites where about specific points on my insistence.
As a matter of fact, I would.
By the way, what other sites do you post on?
I've posted on the IWF site and on the fictionaddiction site (I think that's what it's called). I don't have as much time for this as you seem to.
I "rail" against pro-Choice women (and men) and call them hypocrites when... they want to force all women in to believing abortion is ok...
I rail agains pro-"Choice" women (and men) when they say they support forcing teens and poor women to undergo abortion Etc. Etc.
It's clear that you criticize pro-choice advocates when they aren't consitently pro-choice. That doesn't answer my question. You obviously oppose women being forced to do things.
My question is: Do you rail against women who have abortions because it would be difficult for them to support their children?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My question is: Do you rail against women who have abortions because it would be difficult for them to support their children?
Yes. I think it's a flimsy reason given the gravity of the decision and have said so. This would be more along the lines of arguments in the moral/ethical realm. I have made many such arguments against all the standard reasons: poverty, the child be poor, the mother can't finish school etc.
I reject the excuse of "it would be difficult for them [women] to support their children" because the premise in your statment is embedded with the faulty assumption that the woman has to support the child alone with no help from the other parent. It doesn't excuse abortion to base the decision on a faulty premise.
I "rail" against women who assume that their only options are abortion or raising the child alone under great hardship. These are false choices, strawman arguments. The premise if flawed from the get go as the women should not be expected to raise the child alone. As I said, all roads lead back to personal responsibility of the both parents involved.
However, even if both parents would be in poverty, it is still no excuse to abort IMO, particularly in our country where assistance is available. So yes I reject the "difficult to support" argument all the way around. And I've said so.
I blame pro-choice persons for not expecting and demanding fairness in procreative policy. Even our SC justices in deciding a later case which was a challenge to Roe, cited that Roe should not be overturned because women who procreate cannot expect to ever be treated equally in our society relative to men who procreate!! They basically said to women, "Don't even ask for equal treatment under the law. Don't even bring it up. In return for your acquiescence we will leave abortion in place. "
I blame women who have accepted this fake 'deal'. And I have said so to their faces.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I reject the excuse of "it would be difficult for them [women] to support their children" because the premise in your statment is embedded with the faulty assumption that the woman has to support the child alone with no help from the other parent.
As any intelligent person, who reads my post knows, I made no such assumption. (You love to falsely accuse people of saying or implying things that they've never said or implied.) I assume that women would have to bear part of the financial burden. I know women who have had abortions because they don't want to be financially burdened with a child. These are cases in which the women know they can get the fathers to carry at least half of the expense, but the women don't want to bear their share of the expense.
They (the supreme court justices) basically said to women, "Don't even ask for equal treatment under the law. Don't even bring it up. In return for your acquiescence we will leave abortion in place. "
Nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They (the supreme court justices) basically said to women, "Don't even ask for equal treatment under the law. Don't even bring it up. In return for your acquiescence we will leave abortion in place. "
You really are gone, Lorianne. Get help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well I still answered your question either way. I don't think financial burden is a valid excuse.
As to the SC decision, I submit the following very enlightening article:
http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/scotus/art icles/061693ginsburg-roe.html
Judge Ginsburg's critique of Roe v. Wade is twofold. First, she said in the New York University lecture, as she has written for years, the right to abortion might have been more secure had it been grounded in the concept of women's right to equality rather than in the right to privacy. "The Roe decision might have been less of a storm center," she said, had it "homed in more precisely on the women's-equality dimension of the issue."
..... the equality argument for abortion rights -- essentially the notion that women cannot participate in society equally with men without the ability to control their reproductive lives -- was in fact part of the abortion-rights movement from its earliest years. An equality argument was among the arguments presented to the Court in Roe v. Wade.
In any event, long after the equal rights amendment died and the argument faded into history, it was the Supreme Court itself that revived the equality basis for abortion rights in its ruling last year in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Pennsylvania case in which the Court reaffirmed the right to abortion.
Among the reasons that Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy and David H. Souter gave in their opinion for adhering to the "core" of Roe v. Wade was a sentence that could have been written by Judge Ginsburg: "The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives."
So there you have it. The Justices themselves have said that abortion is crucial to women being treated equally in society. And many women have bought into this deception. We COULD as a society instead demand that women who procreate are treated the same as men who procreate. But we don't choose to do so. Instead we sweep equal treatment under the rug and tell women that their ability to particpate equally is dependent on abortion. Our own SC Justice have declared it! In other words, equality for women who procreate is conditional on them un-procreating after the fact. This condition is not place on men's participation in society. Men are not asked to choose between equal treatment and their child's existence.
I blame women for falling for this Faustian deal in the first place and for allowing it to continue. I especially blame women who won't even consider the larger ramifications of women for continueing to take this 'deal' over demanding true equality. And I blame all of us for continueing to uphold this double standard in so many large and small ways.
To put it another way, can you imagine that black people would have taken a deal to end inequity in exchange for the "right" to kill their children?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is in no way the Supreme Court telling women, "Don't even ask for equal treatment under the law. Don't even bring it up."
That contention is absurd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...the faulty assumption that the woman has to support the child alone with no help from the other parent...
The premise if flawed from the get go as the women should not be expected to raise the child alone. As I said, all roads lead back to personal responsibility of the both parents involved.
There it is. The escape clause. The hidden little premise that shifts responsibility from a woman to a man.
Lorianne creates a problem for herself with combining "everyone is completely responsible for the consequences of their actions" with "parents' interests are subordinate a child's interests.
Based on that, what we hear from her is basically:
The child's best interest is to have the support of the father. Therefore, a man has a responsibility to do everything in his power to avoid fathering a child he doesn't want. He is completely responsible for that if it occurs. If he uses contraception but it fails, it doesn't matter. He's responsible for his choices, he knew the risks.
He's responsible. Sounds tough, inflexible and unfair? It doesn't matter, his interests aren't a fig to the child's interests. If he complains, he's just trying to weasel out of the obligations he accepted by choosing to have sex with that woman.
If she lies to him about contraception, that doesn't lessen his responsibility one iota. That's simply another foreseeable risk and he shouldn't have assumed her integrity.
From this base she gets to launch in talking about how irresponsible and selfish men are and how they want sex without consequences and "How can we change their attitudes?"
Lorianne is surely smart enough to see that the same principles, complete accountability and the paramount interests of the child, have to be applied to women to get any credence at all. But what we don't hear is:
The child's best interest is to have the support of the father. Therefore, a woman has a responsibility to do everything in her power to avoid conceiving a child whose father doesn't want it. She is completely responsible for that if it occurs. If she uses contraception but it fails, it doesn't matter. She's responsible for her choices, she knew the risks. She has co-conceived a child whose father doesn't want it.
She's responsible. Sounds tough, inflexible and unfair? It doesn't matter, her interests aren't a fig to the child's interests. If she complains, she's just trying to weasel out of the obligations she accepted by choosing to have sex with that man.
If he lies to her about contraception or wanting a child, that doesn't lessen her responsibility one iota. That's simply another foreseeable risk and she shouldn't have assumed his integrity.
From there would come talking about the ways women can be selfish, irresponsible, etc, their obligation to a child to be choosy about sex parters and eventually a discussion about both mens' and women's attitudes.
But we don't hear the second half from Lorianne. The last time someone talked about the choices women make that result in fatherless childen, she accused them of demonizing women.
We don't here that because she has the escape clause:
...the faulty assumption that the woman has to support the child alone with no help from the other parent...
It is faulty to assume that a man won't help raise a child she conceives with him. (Even though it seems to happen.)
The premise if flawed from the get go as the women should not be expected to raise the child alone.
In other words we, and therefore women, should assume the father will help raise the child.
So, we get:
The child's best interest is to have the support of the father. Therefore, a woman has a responsibility to do everything in her power to avoid conceiving a child whose father will not support it. A woman should assume the father will help raise the child. That fullfills her obligation to the child in this matter. It is up to him to fullfill his own obligations.
Nifty trick. A variation on "A woman is entitled to a man to help raise her kids."
As I said, all roads lead back to personal responsibility of the both parents involved.
Well... for some people it's all about who gets blamed. The rest is rationalization.
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Faustian decision or not, it's there.
Morally, I think abortion for purposes of birth control is an abomination.
As a libertarian, I think that the less laws the government makes, the better. Personally, I think an abortion should be treated as elective surgery, and required to be done in a surgery, with a full qualified doctor, lifesaving equipemnt, and so forth. Yep, make it expensive. Watch the rates drop. And cold blooded or not, those who get the "back alley" botched procedures - well, it's just nature's way of saying, "You! Out of the gene pool!" Dumbasses. What, am I going to go to a "back-alley" appendectomy clinic? What kind of moron would do that? And what kind of idiot would go to a filthy, unregulated, abortionarium?
Whether you like or believe in it or not, the fact of the matter is that women, by virtue of their gender, have a get out of jail free card when it comes to reproduction. They can play it without permission or justification. And it's at the very least disingenuous to fault men for saying they'd like the same privilige.
You can argue morality all you want - legally and philosophically, though, it is just, right, fair and equitable to say that so long as women have sole choice in reproductive matters they bear sole responsibility for the outcomes.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There it is. The escape clause. The hidden little premise that shifts responsibility from a woman to a man.
As always with feminists, including Lorianne.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are just flat out wrong about what I believe. And I believe you are intentionally wrong.
I hold BOTH parties to conception responsible for their decisions, choices, actions and consequences related to procreative activity. Not one, both. There is no "escape clause" for women in my view. Both parents (not one) self-interests are subordinate to the best interests of the child. I've said it, and you know I've said it, so you're just being deliberately inaccurate.
This is the bedrock starting point. Of course, we know that not all people are going to make wise decisions or act responsibly after they've made unwise decisions. We know not everyone is going to have integrity and face up to their obligations. This is reality after all. But that doesn't mean we have to acqueisce to the lowest common denominator.
We must START with the goal of expecting everyone to use good judgement and act responsibly. (We do this in many other areas of social/legal responsibility). Otherwise, what are we talking about? Why even care if society goes to hell in a handbasket? If we want a Lord of the Flies existence, we can certainly arrange that and live accordingly. From what I've seen, most people in the USA enjoy living with some order and security, not utter chaos. This is why we have a structured society.
The thread was about Bush's Marriage Initiative and it's ostensible goals. The goals I've heard said most often is the goal for kids to have two parents. You can't start on a trip without a destination. So, the FIRST thing is to decide if this goal is something we want to pursue or not. Is it? It's a pick-one sort of situation. From there you plan strategy, how to get from point A to point B.
What about you Larry? Step One: Do you sign onto the hypothesis that children are better off with two parents and that society as a whole benefits from this arrangement? Yes or no?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh so now equal responsibilty is an "escape clause" ? Nice spin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The child's best interest is to have the support of the father. Therefore, a woman has a responsibility to do everything in her power to avoid conceiving a child whose father will not support it. A woman should assume the father will help raise the child. That fullfills her obligation to the child in this matter. It is up to him to fullfill his own obligations. __________?
I did not write the above (as I believe you are trying to imply in your post about my post). Mind telling us who you're quoting here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But we don't hear the second half from Lorianne. The last time someone talked about the choices women make that result in fatherless childen, she accused them of demonizing women.
You didn't hear the first half from the poster you are referring to, Whither Dad. He (not me) put the entire blame one party making faulty choices. I put HALF the blame on women making bad choices, and the other HALF on men making bad choices. Big difference.
Yet, I notice you didn't come down on HIM for unilaterally blaming women. Women make unwise choices, men make unwise choices. To intentionally omit one half of the picture (as Whither Dad did) what I was objeting to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 11, @02:40PM EST (#96)
|
|
|
|
|
You're getting hysterical. I for one think it summarizes and paraphrases your underlying argument nicely. Just for grins, let's say a woman sleeps with a man, without protection and knowing she might get pregnant, and also knowing he's likely to skip town and have nothing to do with any such child, because he has such cute dimples, six pack abs, a tight butt and an intriguing package. In your world, he'd be the putz, and she'd be the victim who shouldered no responsibility.
Well, honestly, if a woman has sex with a man that she knows to be irresponsible or uninterested in fatherhood, she's just as deluded as the man slipping the bone to a woman to make a kid when she has expressed no interest in being a mother. If he walks away, or if she aborts, neither of them had any reason to believe otherwise.
You may argue all you wish that the man is irresponsible or the woman a murderess in the latter example, but both of their other partners must also shoulder blame for plain old-fashioned stupidity.
Jesus H., Lady, if a guy says that he won't stand by her, and will blow town from the get go because he has no anchor on his ass, what points he loses for "irresponsibility" he gets at least half back for brutal honesty. It's like the guy who puts the rattler in his pocket to go across the river - the snake bites him, and it's his own damn fault because he knew what the snake was!
Fugginay! Here girls, go ahead and make stupid choices, because you can always BLAME A MAN!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I for one think it summarizes and paraphrases your underlying argument nicely.
No it does not. It is you dishonestly quoting what you think I would say. That just cowardly and unethical and makes you look like a jerk
I don't think you'd think to kindly if I "quoted" you by making up an entire paragraph and passing it off as your words. People who do that get no respect and their opinions are worthless. Hope you're not in the journalism field.
Just for grins, let's say a woman sleeps with a man, without protection and knowing she might get pregnant, and also knowing he's likely to skip town and have nothing to do with any such child, because he has such cute dimples, six pack abs, a tight butt and an intriguing package. In your world, he'd be the putz, and she'd be the victim who shouldered no responsibility.
No. This is what you want me say I believe which is not the same as my own beliefs. Give it a rest. This form of discussion is pointless. You don't have a discussion by writing both halves of it.
In MY WORLD both parties to sex are responsible for the consequences of their acts and ommissions. They are both accountable for the consequences of what they did and failed to do. Get a clue! Everyone with an IQ over 70 understands the basics of procreation. Men aren't stupid (or do you think they are?). Men are capapble of understanding biology just as well as women.
I used the word BOTH in my posts all the time and you just flat out weaselly cowardly unethically make up something I didn't say and pass it off as my words. Whoever you are, (Mr gutless anonymous) you have zero credibility. Anyone who would go so low as to do what you did a flat out liar. You didn't just misinterpret my words, you went to the trouble to make them up for me and tried to pass them off as a direct quote.
Jerk.
Oh excuse me, anonymous jerk I know its easier that way so you don't have to ever defend your words and gutless tactics next to a name. Proves my point all the more about you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 11, @04:40PM EST (#98)
|
|
|
|
|
Nice ad hominem. Thanks ever so much for showing for all to see what a soul of reason you are by getting even more hysterical because someone disagrees with you.
Such scathing wit and insightful repartee.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wrong again JERK.
I'm mad because you or someone (Larry?) deliberately made up words for me and tried to pass them off as a direct quote of mine.
If you can't even grasp that you're more than a JERK you're a stupid jerk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, that certainly slew him. Oh, Horrors, jerk, therefore Lorriane is right! Well, Scotty G, time to close the board. Ye have hit the end of the line, me bucko, and there's no point in debating further. All that needs be said has been said. It's the ultimate squelcher.
Jerk. How profound. And then "Stupid" jerk, no less! Oh, when will the displays of staggering intellect ever cease! How can my poor brain, yet already boggled by the presensce of such displays of mental giantism, of debating prowress, ever get around such concepts! And look, she put it in capital letters!
Be still, oh my heart. Take your shoes off, fellow men, for we surely stand in the presensce of the divine pheminine! Bow down and worship, and stand transfixed in awe!
Yeah, sure, you betcha.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Women make unwise choices, men make unwise choices.
I was done with this, but this is just too nifty to pass up.
When Lorianne discusses men whose choices result in a fatherless child, she favors terms like "irresponsible," "weasel" and "scum."
When you force her to discuss men and women at the same time, suddenly these same men are "making unwise choices."
Valuable debating information, methinks.
P.S. - Thomas. Sure you can join the Sperm Cartel. First, you have to come up with a name for your chapter. Dr. Evil came up with a great one but I can't find the thread anymore. My chapter is "The Boredom Squad."
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P.S. - Thomas. Sure you can join the Sperm Cartel. First, you have to come up with a name for your chapter.
Damn, homework. Well, I get on it. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When Lorianne discusses men whose choices result in a fatherless child, she favors terms like "irresponsible," "weasel" and "scum."
Wrong again. I have never used the words "weasel" and "scum" about men in the context of procreation. I'd ask you to quote me, but we already know how you go about doing that dont' we Larry?
I reserve those terms for people so deficient in debating skills that they have to make up both sides of the argument and debate themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An easy claim to make. (Was The Gonzo Kid right?)
Well, in fact he was. I'm scrolling through here and I find excuse after excuse for not just doing a little click-snip in the address bar by our token pheminazi.
I really don't expect anything else though. Outrageous claim - no evidence to back it. "I'm not going to do your research..." "I'm not going to dig..." "I'm not..." "I'm not..." "I'm not..."
Par for the course, Thomas.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This whole thread has shifted, and it started out with people saying they wouldn't have children with a woman, or even a relationship, because they didn't want to get into some one-sided deal with the devil.
I've been down the marriage road a couple or three times. My advice to any young man? Run away. Run far, far away. Donate money to the male pill research. Wear two condoms if you must, better yet pick women who are sterile. Or invest in a reversible vasectomy.
The minute you hear love, or moving in, or anything approaching some permanant connection, smile, end the date, and tear her name out of the little black book you keep.
You may want children some day. When that day comes, look for a woman who is so desperate to have children she'd sign anything to be impregnated. Get this signed in a state where it's good - CA and NY are bad, I'll tell ya that for startersa, and make her sign away custody, modifications to custody, alimony, child support, and all.
NEVER, EVER, EVER go into a permanant relationship without a pre-nup, and chefck your laws and with an attorney. If your attorney says "They aren't really worth the value of toilet paper in this state" - don't. In great big quivering capital letters I say DON'T. I tell you three times, DON'T!
You're a second class citizen in the eyes of the law. Protect yourself.
And don't be moved by weeping and the terms of "unchivalrous" "commitmentphobe" "insensitive" "unromantic" and all. Family court is a woman's world, and that's emotional blackmail and transparent shaming language to sucker you into playing a rigged game. It is not a woman's "right" to a relationship and children, and it is not your job to make a woman's life work for her.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
