Respecting women (too much)

Started by TestSubject, May 13, 2005, 12:26 PM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down


Actually, feminazis are at least several magnitudes more repugnant than the real nazis were.

1) Nazis didn't have jewish (or other type of subhumans) children, they had german children and they were concerned about their future as germans.
Feminists don't seem to be concerned about their male children the slightest bit.
2) Nazis didn't beg for compassion and understanding from the people that they declared to be subhumans.
Feminists want men to be loyal to them, to treat them with love and care and self-sacrifice, in return for their life-poisoning hatred.
o pity for feminazis.

Double Jeopardy

Damn straight!!


What a faggly discussion.
If wives get hit they probably deserve it.
Death To women's Rights.


Quote from: "mikeeusa"
What a faggly discussion.
If wives get hit they probably deserve it.
Death To women's Rights.

Explain the manly credentials that entitle you to call something "faggly"?

Sir Jessy of Anti

Quote from: "mikeeusa"
What a faggly discussion.
If wives get hit they probably deserve it.
Death To women's Rights.

This is your first warning Mike.  Shape up and contribute to discussion or find another venue.
"The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master." -- Ayn Rand<br /><br />


duckman has a theory:

mikeeusa is really a trojan horse sent to this forum by the feminiazis. "His" comments are clearly designed to try and inflame people to respond other words, the way one would expect to be responded to on a feminist site. Since "he" has not had a generalized, emotional and hate filled response from people, "his" responses have become even more silly and inflammatory.

duckman is all for allowing this clown to stick around...superb entertainment!!...."faggly"...ya just gotta love it :D
so saith the duckman


Quote from: "mikeeusa"
What a faggly discussion.
If wives get hit they probably deserve it.
Death To women's Rights.

No one deserves to be hit, men or women.
Feminism is the product of female selfishness, compounded by male chivalry.

- Peter Zohrab -


Quote from: "TestSubject"
Quote from: "CaptDMO"
Here's what I see wrong with this paragraph. It's out of context witih the main body of opinion. The revelance is moot without the scope of the authors position. It's cherry picking.

I'm having trouble understanding this.  So essentially, the main body of opinion could have a bearing on whether or not men cause all the heartache in the world.


Out of context?
Cherry picking?
Are these new expressions?

The main body, the author, an associated group, the intended reader, all are important for me to evaluate the snippit! The clip doesn't stand by itself. Where's  the link?
Does this come from a teenage gurl power dupe?, an apologist mangina? A depressed recovering drug addict? A womans crisis hotline? An aspireing Distric attorny/politician? A transvestite Nambla XY radio call in show? Or perhaps a group dependant on fanning the flames in the eternal war between the sexes to justify their sad existance?

'Little clues' are worthless,sophist, and misleading. What's the big picture? Why should I even consider the two 'cherry picked snippets" that you bring to the forum and ask for opinion on  worthy of my time?

Are we on the same page?



faggly and faggotry . . .  too damn funny
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."


Quote from: "CaptDMO"
The main body, the author, an associated group, the intended reader, all are important for me to evaluate the snippit!

So you can establish bias in your evaluation, which I don't want.  Thanks for your time but no thanks.  It doesn't matter who or what said it.  An innacurate statement is an innacurate statement.

I don't need you to pass value judgements on who said it and tell me what you think of their position.  I can do that myself.  Please either focus on the statements themselves or leave the whole thing be.



there was someone with the name, or at least a similar name as mikeusa at mancoat who got banned.


When will people learn that people are all individuals? I cant stand it when people need to blaim a whole group of people like all white people are racists and all men are evil. I mean there is no denying that that sort of feminism is just like nazism.

I was reading a game forum recently and the comment was made that, during role-playing games, making "sound effects" is a "guy" thing; females dont do that. Once again, a blanket comment that covers an entire gender, even though it is something that is based on individual personality.

I, as well, get sick and tired of hearing comments that indicate that "Only men...." or "Only women..." do something or do not do something. People are people, please treat them as such.
"A man chooses. A slave obeys." What if a man 'chooses' to obey, because he is met with scorn, shame and ridicule and rendered a social outcasts if he does not?

Sir Percy

We are indeed, all individuals. That is a narrowing gainsaid too often repeated to be useful. What is at issue is the category attribution and the drawing of categories that are far too broad to be useful either.

There are things that men do  more often than women and vice versa and many cross overs. Sitting on a loo for example is twice more a woman's action than a man's.

As a man I find it mildly offensive - to reason - when someone says something profoundly stupid out of sheer laziness. So the statement that it is men who export violence onto others, cause wars etc, annoys me and even annoys my horse - his mane in a lather. It ignores facts.

Virtually every woman who has led a country has waged war, either on another country or on her own people. Off hand I can think of only two who haven't and they are the Irish and Icelandic Presidents, who wielded no power in any event. The Pakistani female President did. The Israeli female Prime Minister did. The British female Prime Minister did. The Indian female prime Minister did. The Indonesian female president did. Should I go on. Back further in History? The British Queens - every single one of them. The Russina Tsarinas? Even the Egyptians of a long past era - female Pharess - watch out.

Of all the countries in history, most have had a war of some sort, but not in every male leaders's term. Indeed, most countries have avoided war most of the time and when led by a man.

In strict numerical terms men-led countries have had more wars. But proportinately, there is better chance of peace with a male leader than with a female.
vil, like misery, is Protean, and never greater than when committed in the name of 'right'. To commit evil when they are convinced they are doing 'good', is one of the greatest of pleasures known to a feminist.

Go Up