The War on Women in America by Niki2

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Is that crickets I hear? Oh, yes it is.

Hello,

If so, it's because shaking a head doesn't make a sound.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 19, 2012 5:39 AM

Is that a lack of substantive response I hear? Yes, yes it is.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 19, 2012 6:23 AM

HKCAVALIER

An absurd blog post.

Quote:
War is where the enemy decimates your numbers – like, say in China where abortion is killing mostly females.

War is where you are kept from learning – like in most Arab countries, where women have restrictions placed on their education.

War is where your houses are burned, your children taken away into slavery, your goods looted, and you are dragged away in chains.

By these absurd definitions, we are not even at war in Afghanistan or Iraq. Good to know. 'Cause none of these things is happening to us. And if you believe our government, we ain't perpetrating any of this on nobody else.

Sure, we're committing de facto genocide in some areas (shshshshsh, don't spread it around), but we ain't taking their children into slavery, so--whew, dodged that bullet!

9/11 could be construed as a decimation of numbers, but golly, that attack was not launched by either government of either country we're not at war with and was perpetrated by Saudis. So great, we're not at war with anyone on the planet and they're not at war with us.

When you put it that way, there really is no war on women in this country!!! You've convinced me!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 19, 2012 6:27 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Is that a lack of substantive response I hear? Yes, yes it is.

Hello,

I believe that the article you posted is a general lack of substantive response to the feeling that women are under attack in this nation.

1) The article begins by suggesting that unless women are persecuted to the extent that they are in 3rd world nations, they should not feel as though they are under attack.

Quote:
War is where the enemy decimates your numbers – like, say in China where abortion is killing mostly females.

War is where you are kept from learning – like in most Arab countries, where women have restrictions placed on their education.

War is where your houses are burned, your children taken away into slavery, your goods looted, and you are dragged away in chains.

Right off the bat, the article suggests that if women aren't being openly culled, they haven't cause to complain. This lets me know that the article author has no real interest in addressing the concerns of women who do feel they are under attack. No one in America has ever argued that this is the worst place for women to live, or that worse things aren't happening elsewhere. However, that seems a poor excuse for not wanting bad attitudes and bad policies to be looked at and reversed.

2) The article proceeds to showcase areas where women get preferential treatment. However, the article struggles mightily here as we shall see:

Quote:
women have preferential treatment – by law – in any company that gets federal funds

First the author makes a statement and utterly fails to substantiate it. What does she mean, exactly?

Quote:
Women live longer than men.

This factoid is a hoot, as though living longer is a type of preferential treatment. This same author will later tell women not to complain about biological inequities.

Quote:
Women have the right to be sole deciders on abortion

This is a fascinating tidbit. The author begins her article by discussing libertarian principles, but then suggests that women being the sole deciders of abortion is some kind of inequity. This same person will later tell women not to complain about being saddled with the capacity to give birth. Yet this author IS complaining about that very same biological inequity. What alternative does this author propose? None. But we can guess that perhaps she'd see a more equitable solution as one where a woman's choices about her body were not her own. Just who here is complaining about biological inequities? It sounds like the author is.

Quote:
and if they decide to keep the child and make the man pay, he pays.

This is another fascinating tidbit. Is the author suggesting that if a man helps to create a baby, he should not be forced to participate financially for its care and upbringing? Or is the author suggesting that a man should be allowed to tell a woman what to do with her body, by being able to choose to terminate her fetus? Again, the author seems to be complaining about biological inequities, something she's chastising fellow women for.

Quote:
Oh, and in college campuses, women outnumber men.

And this same author neglects to mention how women typically earn less than men for the same job function. A mystery made more glaring by the fact that the author suggests that women get more education?!

Quote:
And please don’t come back and say women have to carry babies and this is unfair. Or that men are stronger and this is unfair. Or that… This is NOT kindergarten. LIFE is unfair. NATURE is unfair.

The author says this immediately after lamenting that nature puts the fate of a fetus in the woman's hands. Incredible.

Mainly, the author utterly fails in her essay because she utterly fails to address the reasons women feel they are under attack. She fails to mention how some in the state want to strip away her medical rights and rights to her own body. How some in the state want to legislate legal rape in order to shame women into desired behavior. How some in the state want to conceal medical information in order to steer women, through ignorance, to desired courses of action. I can only imagine that she fails to mention these things because she sees these things as acceptable. She already suggests that abortion should not be a woman's choice, meaning that the state would have to get involved in a woman's reproduction. How can she be against state sponsored birth control while endorsing state sponsored reproductive intrusion of other types?

What can women think, but that the state is at war with them? Or shall women concede all the battles before this author shall concede that there was a war? I hope this author is better at fiction than she is at fact.

Now, Troll, here is your substantive response to an unsubstantive article. May it illuminate the darkness.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 19, 2012 7:45 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by CaveTroll:
Is that a lack of substantive response I hear? Yes, yes it is.

Yes, it is. But only because you've not offered a substantive response.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 19, 2012 7:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:
Is that a lack of substantive response I hear? Yes, yes it is.

Hello,

I believe that the article you posted is a general lack of substantive response to the feeling that women are under attack in this nation.

1) The article begins by suggesting that unless women are persecuted to the extent that they are in 3rd world nations, they should not feel as though they are under attack.

Quote:
War is where the enemy decimates your numbers – like, say in China where abortion is killing mostly females.

War is where you are kept from learning – like in most Arab countries, where women have restrictions placed on their education.

War is where your houses are burned, your children taken away into slavery, your goods looted, and you are dragged away in chains.

Right off the bat, the article suggests that if women aren't being openly culled, they haven't cause to complain. This lets me know that the article author has no real interest in addressing the concerns of women who do feel they are under attack. No one in America has ever argued that this is the worst place for women to live, or that worse things aren't happening elsewhere. However, that seems a poor excuse for not wanting bad attitudes and bad policies to be looked at and reversed.

2) The article proceeds to showcase areas where women get preferential treatment. However, the article struggles mightily here as we shall see:

Quote:
women have preferential treatment – by law – in any company that gets federal funds

First the author makes a statement and utterly fails to substantiate it. What does she mean, exactly?

Quote:
Women live longer than men.

This factoid is a hoot, as though living longer is a type of preferential treatment. This same author will later tell women not to complain about biological inequities.

Quote:
Women have the right to be sole deciders on abortion

This is a fascinating tidbit. The author begins her article by discussing libertarian principles, but then suggests that women being the sole deciders of abortion is some kind of inequity. This same person will later tell women not to complain about being saddled with the capacity to give birth. Yet this author IS complaining about that very same biological inequity. What alternative does this author propose? None. But we can guess that perhaps she'd see a more equitable solution as one where a woman's choices about her body were not her own. Just who here is complaining about biological inequities? It sounds like the author is.

Quote:
and if they decide to keep the child and make the man pay, he pays.

This is another fascinating tidbit. Is the author suggesting that if a man helps to create a baby, he should not be forced to participate financially for its care and upbringing? Or is the author suggesting that a man should be allowed to tell a woman what to do with her body, by being able to choose to terminate her fetus? Again, the author seems to be complaining about biological inequities, something she's chastising fellow women for.

Quote:
Oh, and in college campuses, women outnumber men.

And this same author neglects to mention how women typically earn less than men for the same job function. A mystery made more glaring by the fact that the author suggests that women get more education?!

Quote:
And please don’t come back and say women have to carry babies and this is unfair. Or that men are stronger and this is unfair. Or that… This is NOT kindergarten. LIFE is unfair. NATURE is unfair.

The author says this immediately after lamenting that nature puts the fate of a fetus in the woman's hands. Incredible.

Mainly, the author utterly fails in her essay because she utterly fails to address the reasons women feel they are under attack. She fails to mention how some in the state want to strip away her medical rights and rights to her own body. How some in the state want to legislate legal rape in order to shame women into desired behavior. How some in the state want to conceal medical information in order to steer women, through ignorance, to desired courses of action. I can only imagine that she fails to mention these things because she sees these things as acceptable. She already suggests that abortion should not be a woman's choice, meaning that the state would have to get involved in a woman's reproduction. How can she be against state sponsored birth control while endorsing state sponsored reproductive intrusion of other types?

What can women think, but that the state is at war with them? Or shall women concede all the battles before this author shall concede that there was a war? I hope this author is better at fiction than she is at fact.

Now, Troll, here is your substantive response to an unsubstantive article. May it illuminate the darkness.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

Beautiful, Anthony. I love you, man!

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 19, 2012 8:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:
Is that a lack of substantive response I hear? Yes, yes it is.

Hello,

I believe that the article you posted is a general lack of substantive response to the feeling that women are under attack in this nation.

1) The article begins by suggesting that unless women are persecuted to the extent that they are in 3rd world nations, they should not feel as though they are under attack.

Quote:
War is where the enemy decimates your numbers – like, say in China where abortion is killing mostly females.

War is where you are kept from learning – like in most Arab countries, where women have restrictions placed on their education.

War is where your houses are burned, your children taken away into slavery, your goods looted, and you are dragged away in chains.

Right off the bat, the article suggests that if women aren't being openly culled, they haven't cause to complain. This lets me know that the article author has no real interest in addressing the concerns of women who do feel they are under attack. No one in America has ever argued that this is the worst place for women to live, or that worse things aren't happening elsewhere. However, that seems a poor excuse for not wanting bad attitudes and bad policies to be looked at and reversed.

The framing of the argument is that there is a "war" on women. I did not frame this argument in that term. You and the cause you support are failing to justify the use of the word "war".

Quote:

2) The article proceeds to showcase areas where women get preferential treatment. However, the article struggles mightily here as we shall see:

Quote:
women have preferential treatment – by law – in any company that gets federal funds

First the author makes a statement and utterly fails to substantiate it. What does she mean, exactly?

This would be a reference to EEO quotas. There is an employment quota for women and minorities. There is no hiring quota for males.

Quote:

Quote:
Women live longer than men.

This factoid is a hoot, as though living longer is a type of preferential treatment. This same author will later tell women not to complain about biological inequities.

Quote:
Women have the right to be sole deciders on abortion

This is a fascinating tidbit. The author begins her article by discussing libertarian principles, but then suggests that women being the sole deciders of abortion is some kind of inequity. This same person will later tell women not to complain about being saddled with the capacity to give birth. Yet this author IS complaining about that very same biological inequity. What alternative does this author propose? None. But we can guess that perhaps she'd see a more equitable solution as one where a woman's choices about her body were not her own. Just who here is complaining about biological inequities? It sounds like the author is.

Two people participated in the act that started that fetus. One person gets to make the decision about it. Maybe the man wants the child. But if the woman doesn't want it, it's gone. Or maybe the man doesn't want it, but if the woman does, she can carry it to term. Her decision and no required input from him. Does that seem fair to you?

Quote:

Quote:
and if they decide to keep the child and make the man pay, he pays.

This is another fascinating tidbit. Is the author suggesting that if a man helps to create a baby, he should not be forced to participate financially for its care and upbringing? Or is the author suggesting that a man should be allowed to tell a woman what to do with her body, by being able to choose to terminate her fetus? Again, the author seems to be complaining about biological inequities, something she's chastising fellow women for.

This dovetails with the previous point. The man is, in historical terms, being taxed without getting representation in the decision to keep the child or not.

And let's talk about the man's share in supporting that child. I've known more than one man who was paupered by the family court. It didn't matter what the man could actually pay and still support himself. The judge thought that he should pay more. One man I knew had the princely sum of $75 a month left over after taxes and child support. $75 A MONTH. How far do you think that went toward all the needed things in keeping his body and soul together? I mention him in particular because the woman in this question was a hook up. They didn't know each other before or after. He didn't even know about the child until he was served papers to appear in court. His life, effectively ended after that family court verdict. He had a steady girlfriend who let him move in. But he lost her due to the stress. He lost his job after moving into his car. Lost that too, when he was arrested and jailed for non payment of child support. What good came of that? The family court destroyed a productive member of society.

Quote:

Quote:
Oh, and in college campuses, women outnumber men.

And this same author neglects to mention how women typically earn less than men for the same job function. A mystery made more glaring by the fact that the author suggests that women get more education?!

Women, as a whole, also take more sick time, use more medical services driving up the cost of group insurance and are more likely to take extended leaves than men. Are they as good a return on investment to a corporation? There are different standards on physical strength and speed for public sector jobs that are open to women. I am a very large man. A female firefighter will not be able to evacuate me to safety. Why should she get the same pay for doing 90% of the same job? I pay 100% of my tax bill. I expect 100% of the services.

Quote:

Quote:
And please don’t come back and say women have to carry babies and this is unfair. Or that men are stronger and this is unfair. Or that… This is NOT kindergarten. LIFE is unfair. NATURE is unfair.

The author says this immediately after lamenting that nature puts the fate of a fetus in the woman's hands. Incredible.

But yet you are arguing that society can somehow put training wheels on its mechanisms to make up for natural inequity. A much more preposterous statement.

Quote:

Mainly, the author utterly fails in her essay because she utterly fails to address the reasons women feel they are under attack. She fails to mention how some in the state want to strip away her medical rights and rights to her own body. How some in the state want to legislate legal rape in order to shame women into desired behavior. How some in the state want to conceal medical information in order to steer women, through ignorance, to desired courses of action. I can only imagine that she fails to mention these things because she sees these things as acceptable. She already suggests that abortion should not be a woman's choice, meaning that the state would have to get involved in a woman's reproduction. How can she be against state sponsored birth control while endorsing state sponsored reproductive intrusion of other types?

What can women think, but that the state is at war with them? Or shall women concede all the battles before this author shall concede that there was a war? I hope this author is better at fiction than she is at fact.

Wants to. As in "not currently doing this". Hmm, I guess Japan "wanted to" bomb Los Angeles. Didn't make it so, but they wanted to. Maybe we should have acted like they had, because according to you, "wanting to" is the same as "has".

And you fail to even acknowledge the decades long pogrom against men that the government and social institutions that the author brings up. I guess those inconvenient facts don't fit your dialogue. Just in case you were confused, those things that she brings up about men, they aren't a "want to" situation. They are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 19, 2012 8:29 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Quote:
The framing of the argument is that there is a "war" on women. I did not frame this argument in that term. You and the cause you support are failing to justify the use of the word "war".

I actually did justify it, by pointing out the various perceived attacks on women. Or is it only a war if Congress declares it one officially?

Quote:
This would be a reference to EEO quotas. There is an employment quota for women and minorities. There is no hiring quota for males.

I believe this is because women have traditionally been criminally under-represented (read: discriminated against) in hiring. So you can see this as women firing back in the war against them.

Quote:
Two people participated in the act that started that fetus. One person gets to make the decision about it. Maybe the man wants the child. But if the woman doesn't want it, it's gone. Or maybe the man doesn't want it, but if the woman does, she can carry it to term. Her decision and no required input from him. Does that seem fair to you?

What happened to telling women not to whine about biological inequities? Now you're doing the whining. The fetus grows inside the woman- is utterly dependent on the woman- and is part of her body. Obviously she has the say about whether it gets born or not. The alternative would be to suspend her right to make decisions about her own body. Does that seem right to you?

Quote:
This dovetails with the previous point. The man is, in historical terms, being taxed without getting representation in the decision to keep the child or not.

And let's talk about the man's share in supporting that child. I've known more than one man who was paupered by the family court. It didn't matter what the man could actually pay and still support himself. The judge thought that he should pay more. One man I knew had the princely sum of $75 a month left over after taxes and child support. $75 A MONTH. How far do you think that went toward all the needed things in keeping his body and soul together? I mention him in particular because the woman in this question was a hook up. They didn't know each other before or after. He didn't even know about the child until he was served papers to appear in court. His life, effectively ended after that family court verdict. He had a steady girlfriend who let him move in. But he lost her due to the stress. He lost his job after moving into his car. Lost that too, when he was arrested and jailed for non payment of child support. What good came of that? The family court destroyed a productive member of society.

It seems a man was treated unfairly. I sympathize. Does this mean that women aren't being attacked? No. The fact that a man has been treated unfairly does not negate the fact that women are being treated unfairly.

Quote:
Women, as a whole, also take more sick time, use more medical services driving up the cost of group insurance and are more likely to take extended leaves than men. Are they as good a return on investment to a corporation? There are different standards on physical strength and speed for public sector jobs that are open to women. I am a very large man. A female firefighter will not be able to evacuate me to safety. Why should she get the same pay for doing 90% of the same job? I pay 100% of my tax bill. I expect 100% of the services.

Wow. Guess what? Women take only as much sick time as they are entitled to. Same as men. When you take more than what you're entitled to, you get fired. I've seen it happen all around me. Are you suggesting women shouldn't be allowed to take the sick leave they've got coming to them? That they should be discriminated against for remaining within policy? That people who use more of their allotted time, time they are entitled to, should lose their jobs?

As for firefighters, has it occurred to you that if you are so big and beefy that a male firefighter might not be able to haul your arse out of harm's way either?

Here's an excerpt from the massechussets physical test guide for firefighters:

Quote:
6) Rescue Through a Doorway: This event simulates the actions necessary to drag an unconscious victim out through a doorway to get the victim to safety. You will be required to drag a 125 pound dummy approximately 50 feet, along a zigzag course to a designated area at the end of the course. In this event, there is a low ceiling over the course to prevent you from standing upright. The time limit is 36.00 seconds.

I notice there is no differentiation between men and women on this guide. I also note that if 125 pounds is the necessary weight to be moved, you're a dead duck, you big, heavy fella. The test only requires Firefighters to be able to drag a fraction of your weight. All firefighters.

Quote:
But yet you are arguing that society can somehow put training wheels on its mechanisms to make up for natural inequity. A much more preposterous statement.

You mean it's preposterous that we tool-using humans can come up with mechanisms to make up for natural inequities? I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Or why.

Quote:
Wants to. As in "not currently doing this". Hmm, I guess Japan "wanted to" bomb Los Angeles. Didn't make it so, but they wanted to. Maybe we should have acted like they had, because according to you, "wanting to" is the same as "has".

What a strange stance. If I try to shoot you in the head and miss, have I failed to attack you? Not to mention that many of these attacks against women have been enacted into law. That's right. They ARE.

Quote:
And you fail to even acknowledge the decades long pogrom against men that the government and social institutions that the author brings up.

Why should I? None of it refutes the attacks on women. If you want to start a War on Men awareness movement, feel free. But a notch in column A doesn't negate a notch in column B.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 19, 2012 1:38 PM

MAL4PREZ

Anthony, you're the best.

So, this insane blogger would have it so all a man has to do is get his sperm into a woman, than he should be perfectly free to choose:

Behind door #1: Total control over the woman's body!

Behind door #2: No responsibility whatsoever for anything that may result from said sperm!

Yep, taking that freedom of choice away from a man is totally unfair, it's a virtual war against him.

**Insert all manner of name-calling of the blogger here, starting from moron and working your way up**

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 19, 2012 1:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by CaveTroll:

Two people participated in the act that started that fetus. One person gets to make the decision about it. Maybe the man wants the child. But if the woman doesn't want it, it's gone. Or maybe the man doesn't want it, but if the woman does, she can carry it to term. Her decision and no required input from him. Does that seem fair to you?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but if he wants the baby, maybe he should take it out of her cooch and stick it up his ass and see how that works out for him! [/snarkasm]

Quote:

And let's talk about the man's share in supporting that child. I've known more than one man who was paupered by the family court. It didn't matter what the man could actually pay and still support himself. The judge thought that he should pay more. One man I knew had the princely sum of $75 a month left over after taxes and child support. $75 A MONTH. How far do you think that went toward all the needed things in keeping his body and soul together? I mention him in particular because the woman in this question was a hook up. They didn't know each other before or after. He didn't even know about the child until he was served papers to appear in court. His life, effectively ended after that family court verdict. He had a steady girlfriend who let him move in. But he lost her due to the stress. He lost his job after moving into his car. Lost that too, when he was arrested and jailed for non payment of child support. What good came of that? The family court destroyed a productive member of society.

Not a very productive member of society, it seems. Maybe he should take more personal responsibility for his hook-ups and his actions, eh? Or be a bit more discerning in where he sticks his junk if he's going to be practicing unsafe sex.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 19, 2012 2:10 PM

FREMDFIRMA

If you ain't wearin a chute - don't jump out the fuckin plane!

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2012 3:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by CaveTroll:

Two people participated in the act that started that fetus. One person gets to make the decision about it. Maybe the man wants the child. But if the woman doesn't want it, it's gone. Or maybe the man doesn't want it, but if the woman does, she can carry it to term. Her decision and no required input from him. Does that seem fair to you?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but if he wants the baby, maybe he should take it out of her cooch and stick it up his ass and see how that works out for him! [/snarkasm]

Quote:

And let's talk about the man's share in supporting that child. I've known more than one man who was paupered by the family court. It didn't matter what the man could actually pay and still support himself. The judge thought that he should pay more. One man I knew had the princely sum of $75 a month left over after taxes and child support. $75 A MONTH. How far do you think that went toward all the needed things in keeping his body and soul together? I mention him in particular because the woman in this question was a hook up. They didn't know each other before or after. He didn't even know about the child until he was served papers to appear in court. His life, effectively ended after that family court verdict. He had a steady girlfriend who let him move in. But he lost her due to the stress. He lost his job after moving into his car. Lost that too, when he was arrested and jailed for non payment of child support. What good came of that? The family court destroyed a productive member of society.

Not a very productive member of society, it seems. Maybe he should take more personal responsibility for his hook-ups and his actions, eh? Or be a bit more discerning in where he sticks his junk if he's going to be practicing unsafe sex.

Whooeee! Gosh, it must be nice to be without sin so you can cast that first stone. I didn't say he wasn't stupid. But he went from taking home 30k as a heavy equipment operator (late 80's)to taking home diddley-squat.

So, how are you going to feel when you get taken to task for something you did 2 years ago and the government says; "Give us all your money Kwicko." Not to mention the social stigma of being a "deadbeat dad", despite not even knowing he WAS a father.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2012 4:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Quote:
The framing of the argument is that there is a "war" on women. I did not frame this argument in that term. You and the cause you support are failing to justify the use of the word "war".

I actually did justify it, by pointing out the various perceived attacks on women. Or is it only a war if Congress declares it one officially?

Perception. You "perceive" an attack. I don't. All we have is politicians blowing smoke during an election cycle.

Quote:

Quote:
This would be a reference to EEO quotas. There is an employment quota for women and minorities. There is no hiring quota for males.

I believe this is because women have traditionally been criminally under-represented (read: discriminated against) in hiring. So you can see this as women firing back in the war against them.

How are women firing back? This is politicians creating laws for their own ends. Don't think for a second that if it suits them they will not cut women's throats.
Quote:

Quote:
Two people participated in the act that started that fetus. One person gets to make the decision about it. Maybe the man wants the child. But if the woman doesn't want it, it's gone. Or maybe the man doesn't want it, but if the woman does, she can carry it to term. Her decision and no required input from him. Does that seem fair to you?

What happened to telling women not to whine about biological inequities? Now you're doing the whining. The fetus grows inside the woman- is utterly dependent on the woman- and is part of her body. Obviously she has the say about whether it gets born or not. The alternative would be to suspend her right to make decisions about her own body. Does that seem right to you?

Not whining about biology, just about a political process. And this IS a political decision. I've seen women make the decision to keep a child to maneuver a man to stay with them. Emotionally or financially motivated, but still political, at least on a family level.

Quote:

Quote:
This dovetails with the previous point. The man is, in historical terms, being taxed without getting representation in the decision to keep the child or not.

And let's talk about the man's share in supporting that child. I've known more than one man who was paupered by the family court. It didn't matter what the man could actually pay and still support himself. The judge thought that he should pay more. One man I knew had the princely sum of $75 a month left over after taxes and child support. $75 A MONTH. How far do you think that went toward all the needed things in keeping his body and soul together? I mention him in particular because the woman in this question was a hook up. They didn't know each other before or after. He didn't even know about the child until he was served papers to appear in court. His life, effectively ended after that family court verdict. He had a steady girlfriend who let him move in. But he lost her due to the stress. He lost his job after moving into his car. Lost that too, when he was arrested and jailed for non payment of child support. What good came of that? The family court destroyed a productive member of society.

It seems a man was treated unfairly. I sympathize. Does this mean that women aren't being attacked? No. The fact that a man has been treated unfairly does not negate the fact that women are being treated unfairly.

How are women being treated unfairly by the family court? Your whole position is devolving into "someone was mean to the women so to make it fair we have to be mean to the men." Are you 8 years old? Group punishment stopped in the third grade.

Quote:

Quote:
Women, as a whole, also take more sick time, use more medical services driving up the cost of group insurance and are more likely to take extended leaves than men. Are they as good a return on investment to a corporation? There are different standards on physical strength and speed for public sector jobs that are open to women. I am a very large man. A female firefighter will not be able to evacuate me to safety. Why should she get the same pay for doing 90% of the same job? I pay 100% of my tax bill. I expect 100% of the services.

Wow. Guess what? Women take only as much sick time as they are entitled to. Same as men. When you take more than what you're entitled to, you get fired. I've seen it happen all around me. Are you suggesting women shouldn't be allowed to take the sick leave they've got coming to them? That they should be discriminated against for remaining within policy? That people who use more of their allotted time, time they are entitled to, should lose their jobs?

As for firefighters, has it occurred to you that if you are so big and beefy that a male firefighter might not be able to haul your arse out of harm's way either?

Here's an excerpt from the massechussets physical test guide for firefighters:

Quote:
6) Rescue Through a Doorway: This event simulates the actions necessary to drag an unconscious victim out through a doorway to get the victim to safety. You will be required to drag a 125 pound dummy approximately 50 feet, along a zigzag course to a designated area at the end of the course. In this event, there is a low ceiling over the course to prevent you from standing upright. The time limit is 36.00 seconds.

I notice there is no differentiation between men and women on this guide. I also note that if 125 pounds is the necessary weight to be moved, you're a dead duck, you big, heavy fella. The test only requires Firefighters to be able to drag a fraction of your weight. All firefighters.

Here's a very interesting article from Los Angeles regarding the high washout rate of women firefighters. The requirements of the physical tests are the principal cause. The firefighters and highly placed authorities in Los Angeles government admit that it was a social experiment.
http://www.laweekly.com/2008-01-24/news/the-gender-boondoggle/

From the firefighters I know, the consensus is that Massachusetts (my home state) is a liberal nightmare where political correctness still, and will always, rules.

I found these physical requirements listed for firefighter test preparation. I note that the weight and the distance are both greater than the test for the Boston fire exam.
http://www.chabotfire.com/Process.htm#THE PHYSICAL ABILITY TEST:

Quote:

7. Rescue

This event is designed to simulate the critical task of removing a victim or injured partner from a fire scene. The Rescue event challenges the candidate’s aerobic capacity, upper and lower body muscular strength and endurance, grip strength and endurance, and anaerobic endurance.

The candidate must grasp a 165-pound mannequin by the handle(s) on the shoulder(s) of the harness (either one or both handles are permitted), drag it 35 feet to a pre-positioned drum, make a 180-degree turn around the drum, and continue to drag it the remaining 35 feet to the finish line.

And you also completely ignored my point about women being more likely to take lengthy leaves. From an employer standpoint this can be a disaster and a major inconvenience at the very least. You have less staff to do the same amount of work. Do you think that has NO impact on the performance of a company? If so, you must work for a government.

Quote:

Quote:
But yet you are arguing that society can somehow put training wheels on its mechanisms to make up for natural inequity. A much more preposterous statement.

You mean it's preposterous that we tool-using humans can come up with mechanisms to make up for natural inequities? I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Or why.

I think you must be deliberately obtuse. Reducing standards or assigning quotas for companies and governments to hire women for positions they are clearly unsuited would be one example. Hooray for women who can meet minimum physical standards for men. But they are few and far between. With this sort of thinking I'm sure we'll see women in combat roles in the Army and Marines. Women serve with distinction in the Air Force, Navy and Coast Guard. However, even the positions they work in are restricted. You don't see many female ordnance or gunners. Those jobs require the ability to lift (in teams) hundreds of pounds. Or tens of pounds repeatedly. Females have less upper body strength, less speed, and less aggression than males. The day we have female infantry or armor troops we may as well hang it up as a country. We will be admitting that we are second rate.

Quote:

Quote:
Wants to. As in "not currently doing this". Hmm, I guess Japan "wanted to" bomb Los Angeles. Didn't make it so, but they wanted to. Maybe we should have acted like they had, because according to you, "wanting to" is the same as "has".

What a strange stance. If I try to shoot you in the head and miss, have I failed to attack you? Not to mention that many of these attacks against women have been enacted into law. That's right. They ARE.

Again, politicians in an election cycle. Pray, tell me where in these United States are women held as second class citizens?

Quote:

Quote:
And you fail to even acknowledge the decades long pogrom against men that the government and social institutions that the author brings up.

Why should I? None of it refutes the attacks on women. If you want to start a War on Men awareness movement, feel free. But a notch in column A doesn't negate a notch in column B.

Curious. Earlier you equivocated that as long as women were being attacked it serves men right to get some.

Thank God I don't have children. I've got plenty of nieces and nephews, but I feel bad for my nephews who have to grow up in a world that folk like you have in mind.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2012 5:10 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Quote:
Perception. You "perceive" an attack. I don't. All we have is politicians blowing smoke during an election cycle.

Your so-called 'smoke' is being manifested in laws, proposed and voted for in government legislative arenas. If they were voting to shove dildos up men's asses, and passing such votes, I suspect you might wake up to the attack.

Quote:
Don't think for a second that if it suits them they will not cut women's throats.

Thank you for proving my point. Women are pushing back against laws that attack them and raising holy hell for precisely this reason. Welcome to the logic train.

Quote:
Not whining about biology, just about a political process. And this IS a political decision. I've seen women make the decision to keep a child to maneuver a man to stay with them. Emotionally or financially motivated, but still political, at least on a family level.

Still whining about biology. The unborn are part of the woman's body. That means it's her decision, even if she's a mean, manipulative lass, unless you want to strip people of the right to decide what they do with their bodies. Is that what you're advocating? If so, that's precisely the sort of threat women perceive, and it again proves my point.

Quote:

Your whole position is devolving into "someone was mean to the women so to make it fair we have to be mean to the men." Are you 8 years old? Group punishment stopped in the third grade.

Your reading comprehension is questionable. I'm telling you that you can't treat women badly because a man was treated badly. That it's not okay to violate their rights just because you're mad about some guy's child support situation. You, on the other hand, are suggesting there is no 'war on women' because some guys got screwed in court. Guess what? One doesn't excuse the other, in either direction. The war on women still exists even if a guy got an unwholesome custody and support deal.

Quote:
Here's a very interesting article from Los Angeles regarding the high washout rate of women firefighters. The requirements of the physical tests are the principal cause.

If physically unsuitable candidates are washing out, then you have nothing to worry or complain about. Huzzah!

Quote:
And you also completely ignored my point about women being more likely to take lengthy leaves.

You must be talking about maternity leave. I don't work for the government. I get paternity leave. Instead of bringing down women you oughta be supporting men. Support Paternity leave!

Quote:
Hooray for women who can meet minimum physical standards for men. But they are few and far between. With this sort of thinking I'm sure we'll see women in combat roles in the Army and Marines. Women serve with distinction in the Air Force, Navy and Coast Guard. However, even the positions they work in are restricted. You don't see many female ordnance or gunners. Those jobs require the ability to lift (in teams) hundreds of pounds. Or tens of pounds repeatedly. Females have less upper body strength, less speed, and less aggression than males. The day we have female infantry or armor troops we may as well hang it up as a country. We will be admitting that we are second rate.

Speaking of deliberately obtuse... I wonder if you can think of any military forces that allow women in the front lines? Military forces that enjoy routine danger and combat? Think hard. I know you can name at least one that hasn't 'hung it up as a country' or become 'second rate.'

But that wouldn't support your ridiculous argument, so I doubt you'll think too hard. Your bias against women is strong and unsavory, sir.

Quote:
Pray, tell me where in these United States are women held as second class citizens?

In Arizona, where medical information can be withheld from them at a Doctor's whimsy. I bet women know a lot more, being intimately familiar with all the ways they've been screwed over.

Quote:
Earlier you equivocated that as long as women were being attacked it serves men right to get some.

Reading comprehension fail. If women are attacked, it serves them right to enact laws to protect themselves from that attack. "Firing back" to ensure they are no longer discriminated against.

Quote:
I feel bad for my nephews who have to grow up in a world that folk like you have in mind.

Double me down on that sentiment, Troll. You have some twisted and rotten ideas about how to treat women. Ideas shared by lawmakers as they daily strive to humiliate and subdue women to behave the way they want them to.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2012 10:24 AM

Cavetroll, just out of interest, what would you suggest might happen if a man wants a woman to keep a child and a woman wants to have an abortion. How would you, in the interests of fairness, solve that situation?

Re men being made paupers by the Family Court, how many women who are single mothers are living in poverty. Haven't got the stats for your country, but here, single income families would make up the poorest strata of society.

And yeah, hook up or not, all of us have to suffer the consequences for ouractions. Next time he should use a johnny.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2012 2:05 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

I just want to note how Jayne-esque Frem's last post was, thanks Frem.
:) Because Jayne quotes can be some of the best in the show for funny directness.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2012 2:21 PM

As a woman, I very much feel that contraception is the woman's responsibity. That's in lieu
of the fact that the last time I took birth control pills, there were easily affordable.

Contraception was my responsibility all my fertile years because:
1. I couldn't stand the thought of having an unwanted child,
2. Me & none o' my beaus were the marrying kind,
3. I wouldn't wanna choose between going on welfare or leaving
my kid with friends and relatives while I worked.

Contraception is the woman's responsibity because the primary
burdens of child rearing fall on her. It's just common sense.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2012 3:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by CaveTroll:

Whooeee! Gosh, it must be nice to be without sin so you can cast that first stone.

Thank you. Having absolutely no basis in religion or any kind of religious upbringing, I really have no concept of what this "sin" is that you speak of, so yes, I am without it.

Quote:
I didn't say he wasn't stupid. But he went from taking home 30k as a heavy equipment operator (late 80's)to taking home diddley-squat.

It never occurred to him to work harder to be a better provider for his child? Really, I'm asking. He decided the easier way was to become indigent so that he wouldn't have to participate in his child's upbringing? And this is supposed to make me feel horrible for him, HOW, exactly?

Had he not heard about all those free condoms that the religious right is pushing on people?

Quote:

So, how are you going to feel when you get taken to task for something you did 2 years ago and the government says; "Give us all your money Kwicko." Not to mention the social stigma of being a "deadbeat dad", despite not even knowing he WAS a father.

Personally, I'm going to fight it in court. DNA is on my side. I've been with the same woman for 23 years next month, and I think I can safely say that the court and the government aren't going to be coming after me for some random hook-up I had two years ago, since I didn't have any.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2012 6:05 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"Contraception is the woman's responsibity because the primary
burdens of child rearing fall on her. It's just common sense."

But DNA testing has changed all that. And though the gears are grinding slowly - women still get nailed for leaving the kid in a dumpster, or in a car, or in a park. But the fact is they aren't the only ones who abandoned the kid, they are the ones who abandoned it LAST. - people are starting to ask, where's the father? He had an equal part in starting that life. His paternity can be better determined than any number of statements sworn on a stack of bibles. Maybe it'll take a while for it to sink in with the numbnuts, but sooner or later it will change - men WILL be thinking twice, and sex will never be quite so free.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2012 6:43 PM

Let me clarify my position.

I am not talking about a child that gets born. "Who Caused this Baby?!!"
No. I am talking about PreVention!
If I didn't want a baby, then it was 100% on me to prevent pregnancy.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2012 7:09 PM

I think one of the problems I have with Cavetroll's buddy is not so much the mistakes that he made, but the utter victimhood of his response - a classic moronic 'poor me' attitude.

This guy is suffering one of the consequences of having unprotected sex with a 'hook up' - that resulted in a child being born. It may well have resulted in him getting a STD or even AIDs, a really harsh consequence, but a reality for many people.

So now having begotten this child, he has to help support him or her. And that is HIS consequence. The least he could do would not be to bitch about it. In past eras, he may have been forced to marry his hook up, or the child may have been placed in an orphanage. Life can be tough, I'm not sure if you could say it was unfair.

i'm not sure what the said buddy would have preferred to have happened. I'm supposing an abortion, but many women are ethically opposed to terminating fetuses. Again, not something that most people check before a casual hook up.

Or would he prefer to not have to support the child at all? Would he prefer that the female bear the full consequences of the unprotected sex they both agreed to have? Or would he prefer the government to be responsible for the consequences of his actions by supporting this child? Or would he prefer the child to live in poverty?

Hmm, maybe the Family Court makes good decisions. Maybe the buddy should be aware of the cost of raising children, and that when couples are together, they often have little or no money left for themselves after all the bills have been paid.

So he has learnt all this the hard way. But he should accept responsibility.

As for the woman, her lot is to have had a child to a immature man who cries victim because he has to begrudgingly support a child whose father wishes that it had never been born and who considers its mother to have been good for a quickie. That's what she has to live with.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2012 7:12 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

'No. I am talking about PreVention!'

And when the day comes that men KNOW 100% that SHOULD a child be conceived and born they too will be held equally on the hook - so will they.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2012 8:12 PM

Quote Kiki: "And when the day comes that men KNOW 100% that SHOULD a child be conceived
and born they too will be held equally on the hook - so will they."

And why on God's green earth would I care a fig about that?

Personally, I mean. I took responsibility, so that's that.
And once the woman is past the age of bein' jail bait (dumb, naive), and past the
pitfall of making victim plans, I hope she thinks as I do.

The only thing that counts here is that Unwanted Babies are the ones who pay the
full price of these mistakes!

You wanna change the men? Go for it!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2012 8:56 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Why should you care? Maybe you shouldn't, as long as you have it within your power to guarantee things turn out as you wish. Not all women are so lucky for reasons for everything from age to transportation to access to insurance. Not all birth control is 100% effective. Not all sex is consensual. Then that equation falls apart. But if none of that has ever been true for you, then you can shrug it off.

But my point wasn't so much that men should change, or that I want to make them change - but that due to some technology they will change.

Historically, the reason why women were 100% responsible for the child and therefore 100% vested in the outcome of sex was b/c they were the only indisputably identifiable parent. The technology has changed that entire paradigm. Men are now indisputably identifiable as the parent as well. They can no longer hide behind the claim 'it weren't me'. It will take a while for the realization to catch up. It will take a while for the laws to catch up. But it will happen in the face of this entirely new reality.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2012 9:05 PM

I think everyone should take 100% responsibility - men and women.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2012 9:10 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I think everyone should take 100% responsibility - men and women.

Hello,

A good position to take. Though I must agree that if I was a woman, I'd take every possible precaution for myself. The investment in any mistake goes far beyond money and lifestyle, delving into permanent biological and possibly psychological impacts.

And I also lament those few who take every precaution but are thrust into situations beyond their reckoning- Either by crime or by freak chance- and must deal with the consequences.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2012 9:43 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

I feel that I wasn't clear that the new male responsibility will be a consequence of technology, so I hope to frame it as a science fiction story.

What if telepathy was proved to exist. What if not only did it exist but that it could be made somewhat reliably functional. What if you could NOT lie while communicating telepathically. What would happen if a means of communication was available that was 100% truthful? What would it mean to society to remove the lie?

I think you'd agree that things would inevitably change. Not b/c people wanted it to, or b/c someone was pushing change, but as a result of a new reality.

Well fatherhood is like that. What if you had a technology such that a man could not lie about being the father?

Only we already do. It's here.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2012 10:31 PM

Quote Magons: "I think everyone should take 100% responsibility - men and women."

I am trying to focus on what is rather than should be. Also on the usual situation, and
best sense for dealing with it. As most sex is consensual, my rule of personal responsi-
bility covers it. I can't make anyone be responsible but me. This is my common sense
reality.

When 100% of men and women take 100% responsibility, we'll be in Utopian Times.

For NowTimes, we have many broken people not being responsible. So my hope for the
young women is: Learn to take care of yourself. Protect yourself. Be strong not sorry.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2012 10:42 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
So he has learnt all this the hard way. But he should accept responsibility.

Uh huh, such folk are always banging the drum and droning on about personal responsibility aren't they ?
Till it comes to visit THEM.
Then they run like the cowards they are, weasel and whimper - every time.
And folks wonder why I hateful towards em.

Sure, it ain't all one way, there's chicanery from women too, most laughable was Carolyn, who threw the think-im-pregnant gambit at me but kinda skipped that whole actually doing the deed step, which resulted in epic hilarity, but here's the thing...

In THIS time, and THIS place, watching an all out war being waged on the rights and personhood of women - my fellow men can go fuck themselves if they want my support for their malice and irresponsibility.
I might not have a lot of principles, but them I have, I treasure, and one of em is the respect of others personhood, which is essentially what this is about as I have stated many times before.

So really, on a macro scale, I don't wanna hear your whining - whatever some chick did to you or yours, in comparison with the bullshit being thrown at them right now, right here, you got no room to bitch, and if you wanted to take and hold the moral high ground, ya shoulda kept it in your pants.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 21, 2012 6:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Quote:
Perception. You "perceive" an attack. I don't. All we have is politicians blowing smoke during an election cycle.

Your so-called 'smoke' is being manifested in laws, proposed and voted for in government legislative arenas. If they were voting to shove dildos up men's asses, and passing such votes, I suspect you might wake up to the attack.

Quote:
Don't think for a second that if it suits them they will not cut women's throats.

Thank you for proving my point. Women are pushing back against laws that attack them and raising holy hell for precisely this reason. Welcome to the logic train.

They're being used as tools by politicians to meet their own ends. Don't think for a second that politicians care about their issues. Your statement is not logical.

Quote:

Quote:
Not whining about biology, just about a political process. And this IS a political decision. I've seen women make the decision to keep a child to maneuver a man to stay with them. Emotionally or financially motivated, but still political, at least on a family level.

Still whining about biology. The unborn are part of the woman's body. That means it's her decision, even if she's a mean, manipulative lass, unless you want to strip people of the right to decide what they do with their bodies. Is that what you're advocating? If so, that's precisely the sort of threat women perceive, and it again proves my point.

So you decide to put in a koi pond on your property. You're saying that if I help you dig the koi pond so I can have the dirt, I have to pay for the maintenance of that pond?

Quote:

Quote:

Your whole position is devolving into "someone was mean to the women so to make it fair we have to be mean to the men." Are you 8 years old? Group punishment stopped in the third grade.

Your reading comprehension is questionable. I'm telling you that you can't treat women badly because a man was treated badly. That it's not okay to violate their rights just because you're mad about some guy's child support situation. You, on the other hand, are suggesting there is no 'war on women' because some guys got screwed in court. Guess what? One doesn't excuse the other, in either direction. The war on women still exists even if a guy got an unwholesome custody and support deal.

No, I'm telling you that a series of perceived inconveniences does not equal a war. But real, enacted, either in law or in court rulings, government actions are stacking the deck against men.

Quote:

Quote:
Here's a very interesting article from Los Angeles regarding the high washout rate of women firefighters. The requirements of the physical tests are the principal cause.

If physically unsuitable candidates are washing out, then you have nothing to worry or complain about. Huzzah!

Not when you have municipalities, like Boston, enacting lower standards.

Quote:

Quote:
And you also completely ignored my point about women being more likely to take lengthy leaves.

You must be talking about maternity leave. I don't work for the government. I get paternity leave. Instead of bringing down women you oughta be supporting men. Support Paternity leave!

Wrong. Women are more likely to take leaves to care for sick family members. In addition to using sick time as primary care givers for children. FMLA, the Family Medical Leave Act was basically crafted for this purpose. Like it or not, this has an impact in the workplace. Why shouldn't I get more pay for being able to dedicate more time to work?

Quote:

Quote:
Hooray for women who can meet minimum physical standards for men. But they are few and far between. With this sort of thinking I'm sure we'll see women in combat roles in the Army and Marines. Women serve with distinction in the Air Force, Navy and Coast Guard. However, even the positions they work in are restricted. You don't see many female ordnance or gunners. Those jobs require the ability to lift (in teams) hundreds of pounds. Or tens of pounds repeatedly. Females have less upper body strength, less speed, and less aggression than males. The day we have female infantry or armor troops we may as well hang it up as a country. We will be admitting that we are second rate.

Speaking of deliberately obtuse... I wonder if you can think of any military forces that allow women in the front lines? Military forces that enjoy routine danger and combat? Think hard. I know you can name at least one that hasn't 'hung it up as a country' or become 'second rate.'

But that wouldn't support your ridiculous argument, so I doubt you'll think too hard. Your bias against women is strong and unsavory, sir.

Eritrea, Israel, Nepal, New Zealand, Thailand, Finland, Sweden. That was just a cursory search.

Any bias is your perception of someone who disagrees with you. Stop projecting.

Quote:

Quote:
Pray, tell me where in these United States are women held as second class citizens?

In Arizona, where medical information can be withheld from them at a Doctor's whimsy. I bet women know a lot more, being intimately familiar with all the ways they've been screwed over.

This is not enacted law. Again, you are mistaking perception for reality.

Quote:

Quote:
Earlier you equivocated that as long as women were being attacked it serves men right to get some.

Reading comprehension fail. If women are attacked, it serves them right to enact laws to protect themselves from that attack. "Firing back" to ensure they are no longer discriminated against.

And you have consistently failed to show me where women are being attacked. Your perceptions do not have the force of fact.

Quote:

Quote:
I feel bad for my nephews who have to grow up in a world that folk like you have in mind.

Double me down on that sentiment, Troll. You have some twisted and rotten ideas about how to treat women. Ideas shared by lawmakers as they daily strive to humiliate and subdue women to behave the way they want them to.

Ah yes, Fireflyfans.net, where we're all for freedom of speech. As long as it is speech we like.

Disagreeing with your position and asking you to support it with real, documented fact is not reprehensible. Anyone who makes such an accusation is just acting out their butthurt.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 21, 2012 6:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I think one of the problems I have with Cavetroll's buddy is not so much the mistakes that he made, but the utter victimhood of his response - a classic moronic 'poor me' attitude...

My friend went from $30,000 take home pay a year, pretty good in '88 or '89, to $900. A YEAR. In what way did the court not victimize him? They took $29,100 dollars away from him. $2425 a month. That alone would be a comfortable middle class income in '88. And remember, he was working a blue collar job as a heavy equipment operator. He had no input on the child and no knowledge of it, other than it being a pleasant interlude. AND the state hit him up for 2 years of back child support.

For example, when I had my first apartment in 1984, my weekly food budget was $25 a week. He didn't have enough to feed himself. Let alone clothe, house or buy gas, plus maintenance. This was also the time when Michael Dukakis' "Miracle in Massachusetts" was coming apart at the seams as fast as his presidential aspirations.

Now, was the mother forced to pay nearly $30,000 a year to support that child? As I recall she was working in a sandwich shop. I think the minimum wage was $5 an hour. So let's say she was making $10,000 a year before taxes. Obviously, she was not spending all of her take home pay on the child. Was she thrown in jail when she didn't provide an equal share of money to support the child? No.

Unequal justice before the law. How is this not unfair?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 21, 2012 6:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Cavetroll, just out of interest, what would you suggest might happen if a man wants a woman to keep a child and a woman wants to have an abortion. How would you, in the interests of fairness, solve that situation?

Re men being made paupers by the Family Court, how many women who are single mothers are living in poverty. Haven't got the stats for your country, but here, single income families would make up the poorest strata of society.

And yeah, hook up or not, all of us have to suffer the consequences for ouractions. Next time he should use a johnny.

She should be offered compensation, just as a surrogate mother would be, to carry the father's child to term.

With regard to single mothers, how are so many people here heaping blame on my friend for not being responsible for his actions and yet single mothers get a pass? My friend didn't know for 2 years about the child. I'm pretty sure the mother was aware much sooner than that.

At one time single motherhood was stigmatized. Not so much anymore. I'm not going to take this argument into the realm of public assistance, but since Johnson's "Great Society" (HAH!) There has been an explosion of single parent household. The reason? An easy supply of food, clothing and shelter.

I've never suggested that my friend should not have paid to support the child. But he was never given the option of taking custody. He had more income and would have been a better provider. But the government's answer was to strip him of his money, his possessions and his freedom.

He is one of the reasons I am glad I always word a raincoat when I was going into the wet.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 21, 2012 7:02 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Quote:
They're being used as tools by politicians to meet their own ends. Don't think for a second that politicians care about their issues. Your statement is not logical.

I don't think anyone is confused about the righteousness of politicians. It's our role to rail against them when they oppose our interests, and reinforce them when they align with our interests.

Quote:
So you decide to put in a koi pond on your property. You're saying that if I help you dig the koi pond so I can have the dirt, I have to pay for the maintenance of that pond?

This is a terrible analogy that doesn't fit the situation under discussion at all. In this bizarre koi pond analogy, it would be more like you put some of your fish in the pond, and are asked to help pay to feed them and maintain the water systems.

Quote:

No, I'm telling you that a series of perceived inconveniences does not equal a war. But real, enacted, either in law or in court rulings, government actions are stacking the deck against men.

Perceived inconveniences? You mean like being lied to about your medical situation, or having a piece of plastic shoved up your sex as punishment for making decisions about your body?

Quote:
Not when you have municipalities, like Boston, enacting lower standards.

If you don't like the standards, rail against the standards. These standards pass both male and female applicants that couldn't rescue me. Incidentally, BOTH sets of standards, even the more stringent ones, will pass applicants who couldn't rescue me. I am 6'4" tall and weigh significantly more than 200 pounds.

Quote:

Eritrea, Israel, Nepal, New Zealand, Thailand, Finland, Sweden. That was just a cursory search.

One wonders where this cursory search was when you were making extravagant claims about the deterioration of our military if women were allowed into front-line combat roles. You have disproved your own premise through this cursory search.

Quote:
Wrong. Women are more likely to take leaves to care for sick family members. In addition to using sick time as primary care givers for children. FMLA, the Family Medical Leave Act was basically crafted for this purpose. Like it or not, this has an impact in the workplace. Why shouldn't I get more pay for being able to dedicate more time to work?

This astounds me. If women didn't take leave to care for sick family members, another sex would have to step in. Which one, I wonder?

FMLA exists in equal service to men and women, and if women didn't use it, those sick persons would still exist and need to be cared for. How this situation prefers women, or penalizes businesses for hiring women, is beyond me.

Or are you suggesting that if businesses weren't hiring these women, they'd be safely unemployed and available to care for the nation's sick relatives, freeing men from having to use FMLA?

Quote:

This is not enacted law. Again, you are mistaking perception for reality.

The reality is that the perception is warranted. When half of your representatives have already voted to strip away your rights, it's high time to take notice of the battle being waged against you.

Quote:
Your perceptions do not have the force of fact.

Well, it is a fact that women were criminally underrepresented in hiring practices. The law you disapprove of was instilled because of that. To protect them. From people like you, incidentally, who argue that women are too unprofitable to hire.

Quote:
Ah yes, Fireflyfans.net, where we're all for freedom of speech. As long as it is speech we like.

No one has silenced you, Troll. But freedom of speech never ever means that we have to accept what you say. Freedom of speech does not mean forced acceptance of your wayward ideas. Freedom of speech does not mean you shall be allowed to support a bad agenda without resistance. Freedom of speech means we are all free to vociferously disagree with you.

Quote:
Disagreeing with your position and asking you to support it with real, documented fact is not reprehensible. Anyone who makes such an accusation is just acting out their butthurt.

You try to reframe my objections. "He is objecting to being asked to support his position with real, documented fact, and is butthurt," you suggest.

Poppycock. I am disagreeing with your position because it is an incorrect position. You yourself have provided half of all evidence against your own assertions. And I have cited time and again instances where lawmakers have proposed and passed legislation designed to attack women.

You simply don't seem to believe women have the right to feel attacked until the probe is firmly up their nethers. Attempted rape must not exist in your world. Only savaged bodies indicate a crime, and nobody better raise voice or finger against an attacker until the deed is done.

And when legislation is actually enacted to stop bias against women? Well, you count that as a travesty, and forget the wrongdoing that brought the law about to begin with.

I don't know why you are so ready to sacrifice women to injustice, or why you think they should be silent about attempts on their personhood, but I find it shameful.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 21, 2012 7:03 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
She should be offered compensation, just as a surrogate mother would be, to carry the father's child to term.

Hello,

And if she politely refuses compensation, and also refuses to bring the child to term?

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 21, 2012 9:41 AM

eek ignore this. didn't read a post

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 21, 2012 9:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by CaveTroll:

She should be offered compensation, just as a surrogate mother would be, to carry the father's child to term.

With regard to single mothers, how are so many people here heaping blame on my friend for not being responsible for his actions and yet single mothers get a pass? My friend didn't know for 2 years about the child. I'm pretty sure the mother was aware much sooner than that.

At one time single motherhood was stigmatized. Not so much anymore. I'm not going to take this argument into the realm of public assistance, but since Johnson's "Great Society" (HAH!) There has been an explosion of single parent household. The reason? An easy supply of food, clothing and shelter.

I've never suggested that my friend should not have paid to support the child. But he was never given the option of taking custody. He had more income and would have been a better provider. But the government's answer was to strip him of his money, his possessions and his freedom.

He is one of the reasons I am glad I always word a raincoat when I was going into the wet.

Surrogate mothers do not raise their children. Compensation for them would be paid so that any lost income would be recouped during their pregnancy. A single mother has to raise a child. Are you suggesting a compensation pay out that would take into consideration
a) loss of earnings that resulted from bearing and raising a child single handedly
b) contribution towards child raising costs for the duration of childhood ie until 18?

because that would be a massive payout, probably not anything that most wage earning males could pay in one go. Probably why they invented child support.

You did not answer my question about if they disagreed regarding bringing the child to term. Are you suggesting that men should have ultimate say in bringing a child to term, overriding the wishes of the mother? Would you suggest legislating this? BTW I am all for involving fathers in decision making if appropriate, but I can't see any way around it ultimately being the mothers final decision, unless you are suggesting something draconian like the above.

As for your statement around the stigmitasation of single mothers, are you suggesting that we return to those days then?

Re your friend getting custody, are you suggesting that the court should have removed a two year old child from its primary attachment figure and handed he or she over to a stranger who the child had never met, who was not happy about being a father anyway? Do you know anything about child development? DO you understand the impact of that action on a child?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 21, 2012 10:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by CaveTroll:
My friend went from $30,000 take home pay a year, pretty good in '88 or '89, to $900. A YEAR. In what way did the court not victimize him? They took $29,100 dollars away from him. $2425 a month. That alone would be a comfortable middle class income in '88. And remember, he was working a blue collar job as a heavy equipment operator. He had no input on the child and no knowledge of it, other than it being a pleasant interlude. AND the state hit him up for 2 years of back child support.

For example, when I had my first apartment in 1984, my weekly food budget was $25 a week. He didn't have enough to feed himself. Let alone clothe, house or buy gas, plus maintenance. This was also the time when Michael Dukakis' "Miracle in Massachusetts" was coming apart at the seams as fast as his presidential aspirations.

Now, was the mother forced to pay nearly $30,000 a year to support that child? As I recall she was working in a sandwich shop. I think the minimum wage was $5 an hour. So let's say she was making $10,000 a year before taxes. Obviously, she was not spending all of her take home pay on the child. Was she thrown in jail when she didn't provide an equal share of money to support the child? No.

Unequal justice before the law. How is this not unfair?

well these are the facts as you present them, perhaps that is how your friend has presented them to you. I have to say I have some doubts about a court ordering someone to pay 97% of their income in child support. It sounds very unlikely to me and I'm sorry, I think your friend may be telling you a few tall yarns or putting a spin on what has happened to him.

Child support is usually based on a percentage of someone's income, but not that percentage. He may have included arrears in that calculation, but most systems, even in America, would involve reaching an arrangement to pay off arrears.

Still I have no doubt that he felt badly done by and that if your states system uses courts to decide child support, it is a costly system. There are better ways.

Your arguments are a little nutty by the way. If the mother was only making 10,000 a year - and maybe that was ALL she could make given her experience and quals and the fact she had a child to look after, then I can pretty much quarantee that she too would have nothing left over for herself.

It seems pretty obvious that you don't have children and you have little idea about what goes into bringing them up, about the cost of raising them, about the impact on your capacity to work if you raise them alone, not to mention what is involved physically and emotionally. It's a full time, full on job that lasts for at least 18 years, if not more.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 21, 2012 1:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by CaveTroll:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Quote:
Perception. You "perceive" an attack. I don't. All we have is politicians blowing smoke during an election cycle.

Your so-called 'smoke' is being manifested in laws, proposed and voted for in government legislative arenas. If they were voting to shove dildos up men's asses, and passing such votes, I suspect you might wake up to the attack.

Quote:
Don't think for a second that if it suits them they will not cut women's throats.

Thank you for proving my point. Women are pushing back against laws that attack them and raising holy hell for precisely this reason. Welcome to the logic train.

They're being used as tools by politicians to meet their own ends. Don't think for a second that politicians care about their issues. Your statement is not logical.

Thank you for agreeing that politicians and the GOP are indeed attacking and waging war on women. As you yourself said, they don't care about their issues, and will use women as tools and cut their throats. How is that not an attack? And when it's a systematic series of calculated attacks, how does that not constitute a war?

Quote:

And you have consistently failed to show me where women are being attacked. Your perceptions do not have the force of fact.

You have as much as admitted that such attacks are happening, and are frequent, all in the efforts to promote a party's agenda.

Quote:

Ah yes, Fireflyfans.net, where we're all for freedom of speech. As long as it is speech we like.

Have you been silenced, censored, or edited by the staff or moderators here? Or do you have a particular problem with others using their freedom of speech to counter yours? You seem to have issues with speech YOU don't like, accusing several here of being worked into a lather for having the unmitigated gall to disagree with you.

You were here before, if I recall correctly, and you ran off in a snit, and how you're back under a new username, but you're still selling the same crap, and you're still getting butthurt when your spiel is refuted.

Quote:

Disagreeing with your position and asking you to support it with real, documented fact is not reprehensible. Anyone who makes such an accusation is just acting out their butthurt.

You've yet to support your positions with anything like real, documented facts.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 21, 2012 3:10 PM

Quote Kwicko: "accusing several here of being worked into
a lather for having the unmitigated gall to disagree with you."

I thought CT only had us lathering over the murder of Trayvon Martin.
But if we are lathering in The War on Women in America also, hmmm ...
I can readily admit to lathering at least once.

At least, it's better than blathering.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 21, 2012 4:16 PM

CHRISISALL

FROM THE DESK OF AL-QUEDA (American Division):

The War On Women in America is being WON!
They vote Conservative in big numbers! Excellent!
Soon they will be wearing burkas. This bodes well for our plan! Allah will be pleased. The events of 9/11 are unfolding precisely as planned. Our operatives in the United States Congress and Senate are being most helpful, thanks to our money.

Send George Bush our thanks. Without his moronic and predictable help, Allah's directives could not so easily have been accomplished!

Soon we will again be free to rape the sluts and kill them, and keep our wives at home to make our children!!!

Oh, and send a donation to PETA. Poor pigs...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 21, 2012 5:41 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

I agree with Magon's, its important for both parties involved in sex to take responsability. I can't wait until they invent a pill for men, then she can take hers, he can take his and they'll have smooth sailing. If you don't want to get pregnant you should have at least one, two if possible, forms of controception goin on. I understand that condoms are rumored to make it less fun, so the man pill can't come soon enough.

Question about behavioral concensus: The "lathering" thing was mentioned in another thread and then brought over here. That has happened before about other things on occasion, but it seems that most poeple tend toward not doing it. There have been times that I've been tempted to do it but I've refrained because it didn't seem nice. What do y'all think: Is it uncooth to bring disagreements or other annoyances from one thread to another? thoughts?

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 21, 2012 5:49 PM

IMO, rude, uncool, & sorta like an ambush.
It is hard enough to stay on topic without that.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 21, 2012 6:11 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

An update for Troll.

http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2012/03/06/senate-approves-bill-on-wron
gful-births/

Apparently nine states already have the 'legal to lie to women' law that is being voted on in Arizona.

That's right. Nine states have already enacted this legislation. Doctors can withhold information about a pregnancy without fear of retribution in a court of law.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 21, 2012 6:22 PM

CHRISISALL

YES! Women, we OWN you now!!!!! Ha ha!!!!

Damn. It's too easy to make fun of this mindset. Way too easy. And sad that it IS how a large chunk of male (& a lot of dumass female) humans on this planet think.

The Mal-like Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 21, 2012 6:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
I agree with Magon's, its important for both parties involved in sex to take responsability. I can't wait until they invent a pill for men, then she can take hers, he can take his and they'll have smooth sailing. If you don't want to get pregnant you should have at least one, two if possible, forms of controception goin on. I understand that condoms are rumored to make it less fun, so the man pill can't come soon enough.

Question about behavioral concensus: The "lathering" thing was mentioned in another thread and then brought over here. That has happened before about other things on occasion, but it seems that most poeple tend toward not doing it. There have been times that I've been tempted to do it but I've refrained because it didn't seem nice. What do y'all think: Is it uncooth to bring disagreements or other annoyances from one thread to another? thoughts?

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

I found it fair game as a comment because it's part of an ongoing conversation that is taking place across more than one thread at roughly the same time. Apparently Troll feels that anyone who gets upset by children being stalked, hunted, and murdered is getting unnecessarily "lathered up" about petty matters. I disagree. And I feel that since all we have to go by here are each other's words, then those words matter.

Is it the consensus here that what you say in one thread has no bearing in any other thread? If I decry racism in a thread about racism, would it then be unfair for anyone else to ever bring that up if I go on a racist rant in a separate thread?

If words are all we have here, then words matter. ALL the words.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 21, 2012 6:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

An update for Troll.

http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2012/03/06/senate-approves-bill-on-wron
gful-births/

Apparently nine states already have the 'legal to lie to women' law that is being voted on in Arizona.

That's right. Nine states have already enacted this legislation. Doctors can withhold information about a pregnancy without fear of retribution in a court of law.

How many 9/11 attacks did we have before conservatives railed that we were under attack and that a war had been declared on America? Did it take attacks in nine different states?

At a certain point, Anthony, your perceptions of a war against women began to mesh with reality, but only because there is so very clearly a war being waged against women and women's rights by hardline conservatives.

Many of these people will even go so far as to call themselves "libertarians", but don't be fooled. After all, if they're so willing to lie to women about their pregnancies, why wouldn't they lie to you about their beliefs and ideologies?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 21, 2012 7:27 PM

DRs:
In youth: I was mad at Drs; they sadly failed their image and rarely cured anyone.

In middleage: I decided not to be so crabby. They're only human, prolly doin' their
best. Give 'em the benefit of the doubt.

Now: Holy sh-t!, they are worse than I thought or have become so! My GP is useless.
My heart Dr. is dangerous to me. I stay away.

There must be many good ones. How to find one?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 21, 2012 8:07 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Question about behavioral concensus: The "lathering" thing was mentioned in another thread and then brought over here. That has happened before about other things on occasion, but it seems that most poeple tend toward not doing it. There have been times that I've been tempted to do it but I've refrained because it didn't seem nice. What do y'all think: Is it uncooth to bring disagreements or other annoyances from one thread to another? thoughts?

Well, it's kind of an unspoken mutual agreement not to carry existing arguments over to other threads, kind of always has been - outside of obvious general partisanship that is...

Which is why on the rare occasion you will see me tearing a long strip offa somebody in one thread, and being quite diplomatic in another - I tend to respond to the tone with which an argument is made, or at least my perception of that tone.
My first post to Anthony was out of a slight misinterpretation of what he said and really tearing his head off, and when he posted a politely phrased explaination despite that we quickly wound up on friendly terms.

ETA: I prefer the term foamy to lathering, but it's all the same to me, there's topics and concepts I DO get kinda rabid about, sure - hell, who doesnt ?

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 21, 2012 8:25 PM