annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Sure you did.
Could Hugh Hefner & Donald Trump Be Homosexual?
- Thread starter Arthur Brain
- Start date
Sure you did.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
No kidding?
That was a nice bit of obsessive trolling on your part, leaving out of course that while recognizing the likely root of his posts I used them to address the larger issue.
You should try that more often, if only for the exercise.
No, but I take it your block quote is you trying to appear to rebut through distortions on the whole what you're incapable of meeting in the particular.
Only if by "a lot" you were to mean what was there to be done and by "all" you mean what anyone should have before the law. Of course, you don't mean that, lacking an evidenced, functional grasp of the subject and driven as you are by a blinding, hostile bias (or the other thing, you know, that Sod is rushing to his abacus to tally).
In exactly the sense that illustrating how movements require both the conviction and effort of the oppressed and the enlightened assistance of a growing number within the power structure. The same being true for India, as I noted, and the same being true for the Civil Rights Movement.
We've walked that lane. I've answered you on it. If you like I can link you to that rebuttal. But you'll probably just forget it again.
Nothing of the sort.
Rather, I routinely note history, its course and constitution, to rebut the ignorant presumption of people like you.
Not even close to accurate, which either you know or should (see: Suffrage Movement).
I only reproduced that to demonstrate another bit of your methodology: flawed premise to flawed conclusion, to distorting inquiry.
Well, you got the contraction right, so it wasn't a total loss.
I've never tried any such thing, though the reason you raise it is the same reason some raise intelligence in rebutting a claim that made no particular assertion related, you understand on some level that your position is worse than untrue and uncharitable and it surfaces in your attempt. It's your moral center that's crumbling, here on the point of women, there on the identity of the unborn, and in a pervasive inability to see beyond the thinner distinctions of race and encompass the broader, more meaningful and shared humanity.
Or, again, the other thing.
lain: Which summed in a word would appear to be the last of the tendency I note above in you. That sum being:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Didn't say that it was. I noted the distortion in your tally, the absence of context and the obsession you have with me--all in evidence within the post.
After reading Cruc deny the humanity of the unborn, the hostile distortions of his relentless attack on women and his sudden surfacing as a sympathizer with racist nationalism it became a point of hope for me that rather than be one of the most hostile, ignorant and aggressively disappointing posters on the board, he might instead be a troll.
Recognizing that was, I hoped, a thing that would rob him of the fun if true and work into the mechanics of his thinking and expose a need for self examination if not. So I noted it in meeting and rebutting the darkness of his thinking.
What you attempt to do with that is, I'm assured, nothing upright or meaningful, only an extension of your own inability to be far from me in as much as you can manage it.
And that's enough for you today. Hopefully this was read to whomever you're attempting to influence...better yet, I hope they know you well enough not to need it.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
not interested in detailing your bizarre obsessions town :idunno:
It really shows. In your habits, your immediate claims, and even in your signature.
Shoo.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
again, not interested in engaging with you town :idunno:
How much blood was shed for women's rights? How many people were jailed or kicked out of their homes?
Compared to revolutionary movements, women's rights was more of a pageant.
Who decided on women's rights
Unlike race and culture differences, men simply signed a social divorce settlement, and then they wanted alimony :rotfl:
The fact that only 5% of those on the street are women and yet only 2% of shelters are exclusively for men is part of the insanity of your obsession with feminist nonsense.
You're a moron, quite simply
But I'm not the one making numbers up and I'm not the one who insecure about his masculinity.
According tot he Housing and Urban Development 2015 Annual Homeless
Assessment Report Women over the age of 21 account for 28% of all homeless individuals. An additional 11% of all homeless individuals are women and girls under the age of 21. Women make up the fastest growing segment of the homeless population. 68% of homeless women over the age of 21 and homeless women with dependent children are homeless because of domestic violence.
You're saying we should have shot them? Or that violence is the litmus for legitimacy? Or is this just you shooting from the lip again?
It was far rougher in Europe than here, but then Europe set the stage for us, as with slavery.
A number of women were jailed for protesting. I don't know that anyone kept a tally on the other bit.
But really, why would anyone do that? Compare a movement born in violence to oppose and overthrow a government with a peaceful movement to attain simple human dignity and right?
A goofy question meant to reduce a movement to the capitulation of the power structure. Like saying the British should be thanked for "giving" India to its people because the Indian population didn't cast the vote.
Gibberish.
Lastly, it's telling that you'll routinely lay the charge of brain washing at the feet of anyone who doesn't advance your laughably insufficient posit with regard to women, then parade the fact that some women were opposed to the possession of legal equality without a sniff in that direction.
38% of defendants in cases involving domestic abuse are women, and your statistics only apply to the sheltered homeless.
So you just showed that your obsession with feminism is an even more damnable thing. I gave the lesser version :rotfl:
Like I said, you're all morons :wave2:
You're trying to make it appear to be exponentially more than what it really was. The status was better for women then than it is now- and they have it made now- so you tell me what was so mesmerizing about it.
I know you like the idea of forced equality rather than egalitarianism and want to sell the country short for women, but we're not Europe
It wasn't for sitting at the front of a bus
So long as there is one woman in distress, you'll send the interest of men down the shaft and call everyone who disagrees a misogynist.
Feminism is cancer, and you all being nothing more than moral frauds.
You could go downtown and see a women's shelter with twenty beds they can't even fill, and a men's shelter that is so crowded that there are more mats on the floor than bunks.
Women have support systems which keep them from being homeless, it has nothing to do with a willingness to work- but feminism leads one to believe that women are simply better than men and that men are louts- and you can't even call that 'misandry' before you're labeled a 'misogynist' for even bringing it up.
You all don't do anyone any good- your support of feminism is really just for your own image :wave2:
Women have support systems which keep them from being homeless, it has nothing to do with a willingness to work- but feminism leads one to believe that women are simply better than men and that men are louts- and you can't even call that 'misandry' before you're labeled a 'misogynist' for even bringing it up.
You all don't do anyone any good- your support of feminism is really just for your own image :wave2:
Well, no. I've noted the movement and the alteration of law. You appear to be searching for a litmus to allow you another opportunity to dismiss and belittle.
A number of problems beginning with the first point. Who says it was better before women could vote and stand as equals before the law? By what possible litmus that is gender specific? Tell you what was so mesmerizing about what?
Forced? I suppose that laws seem an act of force to a criminal.
No, it literally wasn't for that.It wasn't for sitting at the front of a bus
lain:Rather, if anyone is in reasonable distress I'll respond reasonably. The last part was problematic. It depends on the disagreement. If, by way of example, you disagree that women are entitled to equal protections under the law I'd be inclined to suggest the distinct possibility.
Feminism is a wide tent. Wide enough that conservatives like Sarah Palin can walk beneath it. And you approaching anyone with the phrase "moral fraud" is nearly as funny as it is ironic (see: his position on the unborn, his encouragement of people who might literally run over a BLM protester, etc.
It really comes through in your repeated posts and threads about or to me...your signature line, etc.
As to the "Seek Christ" rep retread (another peculiar way to express disinterest)...all I or anyone can do for you is pray.