Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Garak

1
Main / Re: The Curse of 1920
May 05, 2008, 07:19 AM


The consequences are that you get a warning.  I was going to let it slide but since you are unable to take a shred of responsibility I will enforce the rule as it stands.  That was a negative globalization about women and breaks the rules here.  That's a warning. 







This thread has been useful to note that we do indeed have misogynists amongst us.  Sad but true.
Are you calling me a misogynist?


Yes.




That's a personal attack! I hope you have a warning lined up for yourself.


You said that women could not be trusted as leaders or mothers due to a tiny fraction of them being abusive to their children.  This is the same as when feminists try to shame and blame all men due to the 1% that are violent offenders.  It is misandry when they do it and it is misogyny when you do it.  Don't like it?  Prove me wrong.


Uh no, I said the stats said that. I never gave a personal opinion.

You personally attacked me and I want to know what the consequence is for that?



Amazing, you personally attack me and I get the warning.  :toothy9:

I never gave a personal opinion.

I told you what the stats said, stats that you know all too well. I even said the stats were troublesome but that they still stand (because I don't get the option to keep the stats out of print and because circumstances don't keep negative stats about men out of print).

What negative globalization did I make?
2
Main / Re: The Curse of 1920
May 04, 2008, 07:58 PM





This thread has been useful to note that we do indeed have misogynists amongst us.  Sad but true.
Are you calling me a misogynist?


Yes.




That's a personal attack! I hope you have a warning lined up for yourself.


You said that women could not be trusted as leaders or mothers due to a tiny fraction of them being abusive to their children.  This is the same as when feminists try to shame and blame all men due to the 1% that are violent offenders.  It is misandry when they do it and it is misogyny when you do it.  Don't like it?  Prove me wrong.


Uh no, I said the stats said that. I never gave a personal opinion.

You personally attacked me and I want to know what the consequence is for that?
3
Main / Re: The Curse of 1920
May 04, 2008, 11:37 AM

your pissing with the wind  blowing the wrong direction
he didnt threaten to ban you for  being a mysiginist in his eyes so why are you pressing the issue



because a personal attack is against the rules. Didn't you know that?
4
Main / Re: The Curse of 1920
May 04, 2008, 11:35 AM

and why does his personal opinion  matter to you?



Why does anyones personal opinion matter to him, a personal attack is a personal opinion but still against the rules.
5
Main / Re: The Curse of 1920
May 04, 2008, 11:34 AM

he pays the bills though


Oh I see Rusty, so the rules do not apply to him?
6
Main / Re: The Curse of 1920
May 04, 2008, 11:28 AM



This thread has been useful to note that we do indeed have misogynists amongst us.  Sad but true.
Are you calling me a misogynist?


Yes.




That's a personal attack! I hope you have a warning lined up for yourself.
7
Main / Re: The Curse of 1920
May 04, 2008, 11:17 AM



something like this kinda  quiz BRIAN
1. name two rights garunteed in the  first ten amendments?
2.what are the three branches of  federal goverment
3. what has to happen for congress to ovverride a  presidedntial veto?
4. how many supreme court justices are there
5.what are the  two  houses of congress and how many members do they have?


..and does any of this help a person determine who would the best President?


Yes. It means they have half a brain and that they have at least been paying a modicum of attention.


No! The best way to do it is to ask people questions about the position of the candidates themselves. That proves they have been paying attention before just casting a vote for say...Hitlery because she is a woman.
8
Main / Re: The Curse of 1920
May 04, 2008, 10:56 AM

This thread has been useful to note that we do indeed have misogynists amongst us.  Sad but true.
Are you calling me a misogynist?
9
Main / Re: The Curse of 1920
May 04, 2008, 10:55 AM

something like this kinda  quiz BRIAN
1. name two rights garunteed in the  first ten amendments?
2.what are the three branches of  federal goverment
3. what has to happen for congress to ovverride a  presidedntial veto?
4. how many supreme court justices are there
5.what are the  two  houses of congress and how many members do they have?


..and does any of this help a person determine who would the best President?
10
Main / Re: The Curse of 1920
May 03, 2008, 09:36 PM


Women are not useless.


If they have no use as mothers or as citizens, then what is their use?


You tell me.
11
Main / Re: The Curse of 1920
May 03, 2008, 08:30 PM



This is my issue.

If women can't be trusted as leaders, then how can they be trusted as mothers?


The stats say that they can't.


The logical conclusion to a group of individuals who are useless is extermination.


Women are not useless.
12
Main / Re: The Curse of 1920
May 03, 2008, 07:18 PM





This is my issue.

If women can't be trusted as leaders, then how can they be trusted as mothers?


The stats say that they can't.


What stats are those?


The ones that report that women abuse children more than men.


I have my doubts about that stat.  I believe the statistic that more abuse of children is perpetrated by women than men.  I also suspect that more diamonds are stolen out of mine shafts by employee theft by men than women.  The crimes are occupation-specific.  A meaningful statistic would be number of offenders per 1000 population, by gender.


Yeah, that stat is troublesome BECAUSE women have more access to children thanks to our biased courts BUT the stat stands.
13
Main / Re: The Curse of 1920
May 03, 2008, 06:54 PM





This is my issue.

If women can't be trusted as leaders, then how can they be trusted as mothers?


The stats say that they can't.


What stats are those?


The ones that report that women abuse children more than men.


If you are going to go down that road then you also have to say that men can't be trusted either since they committ the majority of murders and assaults.  This is very flimsy thinking and it is exactly that our opponents have been utilizing now for over thirty years: trying to frame all men due to the acts of a tiny fraction.  Please don't  try the same thing, saying it is flimsy is being overly nice.  Trying to tar all women due to the tiny percentage that abuse their kids is misogyny just as blaming all men due to some men's violence is misandry. 




LOL, I see. One of these days you are going to have to stop playing nice.
14
Main / Re: The Curse of 1920
May 03, 2008, 06:43 PM

I'm not going to even touch the "blame women for everything" excuse. You guys feel free but that makes me no better than feminists. Women shoukd vote. They are moral beings same as blacks and any other human. I just don't agree everything went to pot when women voted. It was probably going that way anyway.


Probably but that can't be proven can it?

15
Main / Re: The Curse of 1920
May 03, 2008, 06:37 PM



This is my issue.

If women can't be trusted as leaders, then how can they be trusted as mothers?


The stats say that they can't.


What stats are those?


The ones that report that women abuse children more than men.