NationStates Jolt Archive

And who holds men to their "responsibilities" today?

As an example, there seems to be a substantial increase in little bastards, where the father is never known. And if the father is known, many are not paying child support.

There hasn't been some magical period where women are "off the hook" while men are "on the hook".

My suggestion..

Children be banned.

Forget the human race, our daily lives are more important.. Obviously.

And people wonder why DK got perma-banned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_children#Street_children_in_Brazil

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_children#Street_children_in_Brazil

And what the fuck is your point?

And what the fuck is your point?

A little thin skinned are we not?

A little thin skinned are we not?

No, I want to know what is his point. Why bring it up.

No, I want to know what is his point. Why bring it up.

A dig for a dig perhaps? That would be my guess.

Edit:

Same question could be asked of your remark. That's all.

No, I want to know what is his point. Why bring it up.

From the article linked to, I'd say the point is that there is a lot of child abuse in Brazil.

My suggestion..

Children be banned.

Forget the human race, our daily lives are more important.. Obviously.Yeah totally agree:

http://www.vhemt.org/

:p

Honestly, we are a nation of child abusers. Every time a couple is divorced, the kids are being sentenced to a much tougher life.

Every time?

A dig for a dig perhaps? That would be my guess.

Edit:

Same question could be asked of your remark. That's all.

It wasn't a dig and it was at another person.

From the article linked to, I'd say the point is that there is a lot of child abuse in Brazil.

You see, problem is he's wrong, insofar as poverty and misery, bad and dehumanizing as they may be, are not per se abuse.

You see, problem is he's wrong, insofar as poverty and misery, bad and dehumanizing as they may be, are not per se abuse.

The article also mentions beatings and murders, which most definitely ARE.

The article also mentions beatings and murders, which most definitely ARE.

Indeed. But that's not only not what we're talking about, it also does happen in other countries.

Look. Guy 1 made the ridiculous claim that any divorce is child abuse and that America is full of them. I pointed out that no, I saw no children abused when I was to America. Japanese Side Dish (Formerly Korean Side Dish) started de-railing the thread into a discussion about my country, with the very obvious purpose of aggravating me. I'm pretty sure that if I were to bring up what some American soldiers keep doing to Japanese girls in Okinawa in this thread, I'd be chastised just as I chastised him.

Indeed. But that's not only not what we're talking about, it also does happen in other countries.

Look. Guy 1 made the ridiculous claim that any divorce is child abuse and that America is full of them. I pointed out that no, I saw no children abused when I was to America. Japanese Side Dish (Formerly Korean Side Dish) started de-railing the thread into a discussion about my country, with the very obvious purpose of aggravating me. I'm pretty sure that if I were to bring up what some American soldiers keep doing to Japanese girls in Okinawa in this thread, I'd be chastised just as I chastised him.

Chill. I was just trying to answer your question "And what the fuck is your point?"

As for not seeing any abuse in America, I need to ask: were you here doing the rounds as a tourist? I ask, because it's not likely that any planned or guided tours would emphasize that side of our culture (or yours, or any others, for that matter). All nations would want to present their best face to the rest of the world, and downplay the negatives that we as a SPECIES are sadly prone to.

Chill. I was just trying to answer your question "And what the fuck is your point?"

As for not seeing any abuse in America, I need to ask: were you here doing the rounds as a tourist? I ask, because it's not likely that any planned or guided tours would emphasize that side of our culture (or yours, or any others, for that matter). All nations would want to present their best face to the rest of the world, and downplay the negatives that we as a SPECIES are sadly prone to.

Well, I did spend the vast majority of my time in Manhattan. :p

Well, I did spend the vast majority of my time in Manhattan. :p

I'm sorry. Next time try Texas.

Note that most of the yokels there will assume, that coming from South America, your native language is spanish.;)

I'm sorry. Next time try Texas.

Note that most of the yokels there will assume, that coming from South America, your native language is spanish.;)

To which my "My native language is Portuguese and I speak English better than you" reply will be met in surprise. :p

To which my "My native language is Portuguese and I speak English better than you" reply will be met in surprise. :p

I would personally laugh till I turned blue, were I to witness that.

Edit: Better yet, say it in Portuguese, and really enjoy the resulting "Huh?".

I'm sorry. Next time try Texas.

Note that most of the yokels there will assume, that coming from South America, your native language is spanish.;)

To which my "My native language is Portuguese and I speak English better than you" reply will be met in surprise. :p

Of course, the majority of people from there won't know what Portuguese is even after you say that. After all, it is the southern US.

Of course, the majority of people from there won't know what Portuguese is even after you say that. After all, it is the southern US.

Point.

Sounds like a problem with their Socioeconomic Level than with Feminism to me...

I would personally laugh till I turned blue, were I to witness that.

Edit: Better yet, say it in Portuguese, and really enjoy the resulting "Huh?".

Nah, if you say it in Portuguese, they'll still just think you're speaking Spanish.

Men are constantly told that they would be "pussies" if they would "cry" over one...

If I hit a guy, and he started crying, I would call him a pussy. Of course, I wouldn't hit him again, because hitting a guy who's crying is like picking on someone who is smaller than you, or tripping a blind guy, or something.

I've heard crazy radical feminists say all heterosexual sex is rape...

That was Andrea Dworkin, yeah? Ironically, wasn't she married when she published that sentiment?

Of course, the majority of people from there won't know what Portuguese is even after you say that. After all, it is the southern US.

Yes, because everyone from the southern U.S. is an ignorant inbred moron completely unfamiliar with the world at large, the same way that all French people are effete, chain-smoking, cheese-eating surrender monkeys, or all Mexicans are lazy, or all Japanese are sex-obsessed little geeks with coke-bottle glasses. :rolleyes:

If I hit a guy, and he started crying, I would call him a pussy. Of course, I wouldn't hit him again, because hitting a guy who's crying is like picking on someone who is smaller than you.

Yes yes, on the internet, everybody's a cowboy.

How is it negligence? He's her boyfriend. Did she have any reason to suspect that he would be an inadequate babysitter? Just because he's in a gang doesn't mean he'd beat up a kid. Leaving the kid at home alone while she went somewhere would be negligence.

I guess the question becomes if a gang member is inherently an inadequate babysitter. I'd tend to say they are. Maybe it's because I don't care for the lifestyle, but I think leaving anything valuable with a gang member would be a bad idea, and shows negligence.

I guess the question becomes if a gang member is inherently an inadequate babysitter. I'd tend to say they are. Maybe it's because I don't care for the lifestyle, but I think leaving anything valuable with a gang member would be a bad idea, and shows negligence.

So, if your own dad, for example, was a gangmember... deciding to go visit would be 'negligence'?

Ironically, wasn't she married when she published that sentiment?


You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Of course, the majority of people from there won't know what Portuguese is even after you say that. After all, it is the southern US.

And the best part of being reasonably intelligent and educated and from the south, is you stand out as a damn near different species.

Yes yes, on the internet, everybody's a cowboy.

Never said I was a cowboy. As a matter of fact, that's one of the few things I've not done for employment(although I have ridden a mechanical bull). I do wear a cowboy hat, though, so I see where you might be confused. That's mostly to keep the rain and sun off.

If I hit a guy, and he started crying, I would call him a pussy.

That's pretty pathetic. On your part.

That was Andrea Dworkin, yeah?

No. For the most part, that was "evil radical feminist in anecdote."

Never said I was a cowboy. As a matter of fact, that's one of the few things I've not done for employment(although I have ridden a mechanical bull). I do wear a cowboy hat, though, so I see where you might be confused. That's mostly to keep the rain and sun off.

whatever you say, tough guy.

That's pretty pathetic. On your part.

If you're a grown man, bursting into tears when someone hits you isn't at least a little sad?

No. For the most part, that was "evil radical feminist in anecdote."

So, she didn't write a book called Intercourse in which she wrote "Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women," then?

So, if your own dad, for example, was a gangmember... deciding to go visit would be 'negligence'?

If someone was old enough to make a decision like that for themselves, then good for them. In doing it for someone else, I'm not sure it wouldn't be neglect. I think the question you have to ask yourself when leaving your kid somewhere is "Does leaving my kid with a gang member increase their risk of harm?" I think in reference to a gang member, the answer is going to be yes. You can kind of replace that phrase with any other one you want to come up with a good rule of thumb. Teacher? Probably Ok. Pedophile? Probably not. Thief? Probably not. etc.

If you're a grown man, bursting into tears when someone hits you isn't at least a little sad?

Not really, no. (If you do it to gain attention for yourself, perhaps, but that's a different matter and does not suggest weakness.)

So, she didn't write a book called Intercourse in which she wrote "Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women," then?

No, she wrote that, but not to say that "All heterosexual sex is rape." ("Rape", incidentally, is not even in the above sentence.)

Indeed, a part of her point is aptly illustrated by the fact that you move immediately from "sex" to "intercourse" without even recognizing the shift....

Nevertheless, for the record:

Michael Moorcock: After "Right-Wing Women" and "Ice and Fire" you wrote "Intercourse". Another book which helped me clarify confusions about my own sexual relationships. You argue that attitudes to conventional sexual intercourse enshrine and perpetuate sexual inequality. Several reviewers accused you of saying that all intercourse was rape. I haven't found a hint of that anywhere in the book. Is that what you are saying?

Andrea Dworkin: No, I wasn't saying that and I didn't say that, then or ever. There is a long section in Right-Wing Women on intercourse in marriage. My point was that as long as the law allows statutory exemption for a husband from rape charges, no married woman has legal protection from rape. I also argued, based on a reading of our laws, that marriage mandated intercourse--it was compulsory, part of the marriage contract. Under the circumstances, I said, it was impossible to view sexual intercourse in marriage as the free act of a free woman. I said that when we look at sexual liberation and the law, we need to look not only at which sexual acts are forbidden, but which are compelled.

The whole issue of intercourse as this culture's penultimate expression of male dominance became more and more interesting to me. In Intercourse I decided to approach the subject as a social practice, material reality. This may be my history, but I think the social explanation of the "all sex is rape" slander is different and probably simple. Most men and a good number of women experience sexual pleasure in inequality. Since the paradigm for sex has been one of conquest, possession, and violation, I think many men believe they need an unfair advantage, which at its extreme would be called rape. I don't think they need it. I think both intercourse and sexual pleasure can and will survive equality.

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/MoorcockInterview.html

If someone was old enough to make a decision like that for themselves, then good for them. In doing it for someone else, I'm not sure it wouldn't be neglect. I think the question you have to ask yourself when leaving your kid somewhere is "Does leaving my kid with a gang member increase their risk of harm?" I think in reference to a gang member, the answer is going to be yes. You can kind of replace that phrase with any other one you want to come up with a good rule of thumb. Teacher? Probably Ok. Pedophile? Probably not. Thief? Probably not. etc.

Statistically, (for example) the highest risk group in terms of sexual abuse of children, is the 'straight', Christian parents, of those same children.

So - why isn't your rule of thumb "it's dangerous to leave children with their parents?", or "leaving children with Christians is negligent because of the sexual abuse risk" or "straight people shouldn't be allowed to have kids"?

Because you're making a nonsensical generalisation.

What was the gang member's relationship to the child? To the mother? If - for example - the 'gangmember' in the story IS the child's parent, is it 'negligent' to leave the child with it's OWN parents?

Not really, no. (If you do it to gain attention for yourself, perhaps, but that's a different matter and does not suggest weakness.)


Not to mention - the whole concept is close to nonsensical, anyway.

One of my best friends weighs maybe 150 lbs, and is maybe five and a half feet tall. I'm probably a foot taller, and I certainly weigh half as much again. If I were to hit my ('grown man') friend, it would have a very different result than if that same 'grown man' friend were to hit me.

Heinleinites' comment was so meaningless as to be impossible to process as a serious statement.

Statistically, (for example) the highest risk group in terms of sexual abuse of children, is the 'straight', Christian parents, of those same children.

So - why isn't your rule of thumb "it's dangerous to leave children with their parents?", or "leaving children with Christians is negligent because of the sexual abuse risk" or "straight people shouldn't be allowed to have kids"?

Because you're making a nonsensical generalisation.

What was the gang member's relationship to the child? To the mother? If - for example - the 'gangmember' in the story IS the child's parent, is it 'negligent' to leave the child with it's OWN parents?

Yes to All, lol...It had to be stated...

Honestly, we are a nation of child abusers. Every time a couple is divorced, the kids are being sentenced to a much tougher life.

You know, speaking as a person whose parents have separated, you are talking absolute shit. As you've obviously never been through that sort of situation yourself, why don't you just shut the fuck up about it?

*snip*

You can restore your nation; just try to log in and hit "Restore Nation" when prompted.

And the best part of being reasonably intelligent and educated and from the south, is you stand out as a damn near different species.

Really? I thought otherwise.:rolleyes:

You know, speaking as a person whose parents have separated, you are talking absolute shit. As you've obviously never been through that sort of situation yourself, why don't you just shut the fuck up about it?

Well, since you used yourself as an example, it does look like you've been through a tougher life - you seem a little more innately hostile then average. So since you're obviously very angry about it, I'm not sure why you opposed his statement - it clearly had an effect on you. And as one human being ot another, I'm sorry that life dealt you that hand.

Really? I thought otherwise.:rolleyes:

Then what else would say is the best part about being from the south? My second pick was having an accent that can turn on a woman from 50 meters.

Then what else would say is the best part about being from the south? My second pick was having an accent that can turn on a woman from 50 meters.

Once again, I think it's the other way around.

Once again, I think it's the other way around.

A woman that can turn on an accent from 50 meters?

Like ventrilquism?

A woman that can turn on an accent from 50 meters?

Like ventrilquism?

Jhah-kun... nani ka?:confused:

Actually, come to think of it, I am the best part of the south.

Actually, come to think of it, I am the best part of the south.

I'll take your word for it. ;)

Jhah-kun... nani ka?:confused:

***looks up phrase in Universal Translator Dictionary: Cat-Eared Alien Girl Edition***

Okay, lessee....ah here it is, "jhah-kun nani ka"

***reads translation***

Um...okay, but I don't think latex is designed to withstand that kind of pressure...

You can restore your nation; just try to log in and hit "Restore Nation" when prompted.

I know. But that doesn't reconnect it with the forum account properly, so posting on NSG doesn't work.

Well, since you used yourself as an example, it does look like you've been through a tougher life - you seem a little more innately hostile then average. So since you're obviously very angry about it, I'm not sure why you opposed his statement - it clearly had an effect on you. And as one human being ot another, I'm sorry that life dealt you that hand.

Speaking as myself, I'm angry for one very simple reason: because some other person wishes to say that my parents were crap for what they did. I am not angry because they separated, I am angry at Deepcreek because xe claims that automatically makes them bad people.

I actually supported it, when they told me. I knew they had been going through some really tough stuff, and had been for quite some time. I knew that it just wasn't working out, and that all of us were being affected by the problems they were facing. I knew that they were not taking the decision lightly, that they still cared about me, and that they only did it because the alternative - staying together - was even worse. And I know that the pain I felt (and sometimes still feel) from it was not a result of their separation, but a result of the pain they had been feeling. In short, their separation was not the key thing that had an effect on me, it was the fundamental problems in their marriage. Were they to have stayed together, it wouldn't have helped.

Divorce is neutral. It is the reasons for divorce that are the problem. There are some families (although I've never seen anyone point to a good example) where divorce is worse than the alternative. There are families which go through horribly messy divorces. But in nearly every case, divorce is a last resort once there are children involved. It only happens when nothing else can be done, when remaining together will do more harm to everybody involved. I'm not saying divorce is a good thing - ideally it should never be necessary, and should pass out of use - but that it is sometimes necessary, and when it is, it is the best option available.

***looks up phrase in Universal Translator Dictionary: Cat-Eared Alien Girl Edition***

Okay, lessee....ah here it is, "jhah-kun nani ka"

***reads translation***

Um...okay, but I don't think latex is designed to withstand that kind of pressure...

Ay joder. Si es que la puta peliculilla no se acaba. Y mirad que lo he pedido, pero no. Vamos, que se le va a hacer.:rolleyes:

I'll take your word for it. ;)

I've got a damn good lock on being the best part of the north as well.:D

I've got a damn good lock on being the best part of the north as well.:D

Exaggerating and bluffing? Yes, you're Southern.:D

Exaggerating and bluffing? Yes, you're Southern.:D

And Spain is southern Europe.;)

And Spain is southern Europe.;)

Ah, but I am from Northern Spain so...:wink:

Ay joder. Si es que la puta peliculilla no se acaba. Y mirad que lo he pedido, pero no. Vamos, que se le va a hacer.:rolleyes:

Fie on thee, temptuous polyglot!

Do you not baffle adequately with the beautiful chaoses of your very nature? Must be you confuse and confound com sua sagacidade?

Make plain your sayings, lest your coyness give weight to that long wrongful reputation of mystery that your gender labors under!

Moreso, shall I....shall...

Wait, hang on..."puta"?

Does that mean what it means when I go to Tijuana?




Did you call me a whore?

Ah, but I am from Northern Spain so...:wink:

You win. But the south will rise again.:D

Speaking as an A-Level qualified sociologist, Dr Laura's article wants me to stick my head in a blender at its sheer level of idiocy.

This includes paying the money to buy the blender first. It's truly that off the mark.

Speaking as an A-Level qualified sociologist, Dr Laura's article wants me to stick my head in a blender at its sheer level of idiocy.

This includes paying the money to buy the blender first. It's truly that off the mark.

Wow.

You must have a very small head.

Or access to very big blenders.

Speaking as an A-Level qualified sociologist, Dr Laura's article wants me to stick my head in a blender at its sheer level of idiocy.

This includes paying the money to buy the blender first. It's truly that off the mark.

Were you a wiser person, you'd realize you could stick her head in instead. If you did that, I think you might even find volunteers to help you buy the blender.

Statistically, (for example) the highest risk group in terms of sexual abuse of children, is the 'straight', Christian parents, of those same children.

So - why isn't your rule of thumb "it's dangerous to leave children with their parents?", or "leaving children with Christians is negligent because of the sexual abuse risk" or "straight people shouldn't be allowed to have kids"?

Because you're making a nonsensical generalisation.

What was the gang member's relationship to the child? To the mother? If - for example - the 'gangmember' in the story IS the child's parent, is it 'negligent' to leave the child with it's OWN parents?

The state rules that parents shouldn't have children all the time.

And, for example, the highest risk group in terms of sexual abuse to children is those pedophiles I rather specifically mentioned. It's an extra piece attached to the straight, Christian parents. Just like Gang member is the extra piece to why mom in this case should be going to jail. There is plenty of reason to forsee that a gang member is going to be a criminal in general, even if you cannot forsee him killing your kids.

The state rules that parents shouldn't have children all the time.

And, for example, the highest risk group in terms of sexual abuse to children is those pedophiles I rather specifically mentioned.

No, it isn't actually.

That's one of the weird things: the people who abuse (their own) children most are abusing SAME SEX children, despite being 'straight' and 'not pedophiles' - pedophilia and child-abuse actually being different things.

No, she wrote that, but not to say that "All heterosexual sex is rape." ("Rape", incidentally, is not even in the above sentence.)

Yes, she may not have said those exact words in that exact order, but she did write that "violation is a synonym for intercourse." Other feminist critics have pointed out that statements like that and the previous quote are hard to misinterpret. Given her writings and career, as an interpretation, it's not exactly a logical leap out to left field. It's like if I see a guy in a white robe and a hood standing next to a burning cross, I don't need to hear him say the phrase 'I hate niggers' to be able to infer that he hates black people.

As for the interview there, she rejected that interpretation of her argument, by suggesting that the misunderstanding came about because of the very sexual ideology she was criticizing. I don't know, that smacks a little of 'those who deny the existence of robots may be robots themselves' for my taste.

As for the interview there, she rejected that interpretation of her argument, by suggesting that the misunderstanding came about because of the very sexual ideology she was criticizing.

Her argument is obviously disingenuous, but that's not the point.

The point is that when an author explicitly rejects a certain characterization of her position, it makes sense to defer to her judgment as to what she actually does and does not believe.

Edit: Also, I find it interesting that you assert that Dworkin's general radical feminist politics somehow naturally imply a characterization of all heterosexual sex as rape. Since she is the typical example used to support that characterization of radical feminism (after the anecdotal "feminazi"), that suggests a circular argument to me.

The point is that when an author explicitly rejects a certain characterization of her position, it makes sense to defer to her judgment as to what she actually does and does not believe.

Ah, I see. If only people gave Ann Coulter that same benefit of the doubt. I'm sure that's somehow completely different though.

Also, I find it interesting that you assert that Dworkin's general radical feminist politics somehow naturally imply a characterization of all heterosexual sex as rape.

I was unaware I was asserting anything. Ryadn mentioned it, I thought I knew who she was talking about, I wanted clarification, and then you mentioned unsubstantiated anecdotes and made me look it up instead of getting her to do the work for me.

Ah, I see. If only people gave Ann Coulter that same benefit of the doubt. I'm sure that's somehow completely different though.

I'm not sure what you're referring to specifically, so I can't respond substantively to that statement. (Depending on what you mean, you may also be conflating separate issues. Saying certain things is obnoxious regardless of whether and how they reflect your position. But that is not the issue in our discussion.)

I was unaware I was asserting anything.

I'll gladly bring you up from your state of unawareness, then:

"Given her writings and career, as an interpretation, it's not exactly a logical leap out to left field. It's like if I see a guy in a white robe and a hood standing next to a burning cross, I don't need to hear him say the phrase 'I hate niggers' to be able to infer that he hates black people."

Wow.

You must have a very small head.

Or access to very big blenders.
Little of Column A...

Were you a wiser person, you'd realize you could stick her head in instead. If you did that, I think you might even find volunteers to help you buy the blender.
Ah, but it still won't erase that dross from my brain. That's what the blender is for.

Well, since you used yourself as an example, it does look like you've been through a tougher life - you seem a little more innately hostile then average. So since you're obviously very angry about it, I'm not sure why you opposed his statement - it clearly had an effect on you. And as one human being ot another, I'm sorry that life dealt you that hand.

Divorce does have a negative effect, but not necessarily in creating a difficult life.

We don't appreciate reading and hearing comments about how it made life difficult for us and how those with married parents are somehow not subject to the difficult life and are thus... "special" because of it. To me, UNIuniverseVERSE's comment is not indicative of a greater level of hostility from his upbringing. People, regardless of upbringings, can easily react angrily to perceived ignorance. It doesn't mean that because he did so, it was a result of X.

Divorce doesn't necessarily have a negative effect, either.

Or rather, it doesn't necessarily have a negative effect, overall.

i really agree with Dr. Laura on this. what do u think?





i think that feminsm has caused women to have a lot of rights but no responsibltys if they want all the rights of being like men then they should go to jail like them too!

Eh buh what? I think I missed some huge leap in mislogic here somewhere.

The state rules that parents shouldn't have children all the time.

And, for example, the highest risk group in terms of sexual abuse to children is those pedophiles I rather specifically mentioned. It's an extra piece attached to the straight, Christian parents. Just like Gang member is the extra piece to why mom in this case should be going to jail. There is plenty of reason to forsee that a gang member is going to be a criminal in general, even if you cannot forsee him killing your kids.
So, is it your opinion that criminals should be prevented from reproducing, so as to avoid them being parents? (Note: Yes, I am making several leaps here, but all are based on the content of your statement. I will be interested to watch you connect the dots.)

Fie on thee, temptuous polyglot!

Do you not baffle adequately with the beautiful chaoses of your very nature? Must be you confuse and confound com sua sagacidade?

Make plain your sayings, lest your coyness give weight to that long wrongful reputation of mystery that your gender labors under!

Moreso, shall I....shall...

Wait, hang on..."puta"?

Does that mean what it means when I go to Tijuana?




Did you call me a whore?

No Jhah-kun, I did not call you a whore. I was referring to something else entirely and you just ranted on about language and woman's nature.

BTW, thanks for calling me a ''temptuous polyglot''. It suits me.:wink:

Ah, but it still won't erase that dross from my brain. That's what the blender is for.

That's fine, just make sure she goes first. :)

Divorce does have a negative effect, but not necessarily in creating a difficult life.

We don't appreciate reading and hearing comments about how it made life difficult for us and how those with married parents are somehow not subject to the difficult life and are thus... "special" because of it. To me, UNIuniverseVERSE's comment is not indicative of a greater level of hostility from his upbringing. People, regardless of upbringings, can easily react angrily to perceived ignorance. It doesn't mean that because he did so, it was a result of X.

Precisely. I was hostile, yes, but it was the hostility nearly anybody feels on hearing someone else say something from ignorance, and something that seemed, to me at least, quite offensive.

Honestly, we are a nation of child abusers. Every time a couple is is unhappy but remains together, the kids are being sentenced to a much tougher life.

Fixed. Now its not quite as bullshit. Thank me later.

No Jhah-kun, I did not call you a whore. I was referring to something else entirely and you just ranted on about language and woman's nature.

BTW, thanks for calling me a ''temptuous polyglot''. It suits me.:wink:

Well, okay. But you can call me a whore if you want.




I would totally do you for money. Or the promise of money. Or if you just said the word money. Or the word "monkey". Or hello.

I would do you.

I know. But that doesn't reconnect it with the forum account properly, so posting on NSG doesn't work.


It sends you a validation link via e-mail. You have to follow it to post on the forum.

That's fine, just make sure she goes first. :)
Duly noted. The task of doing this will be awarded to the highest bidder.

Duly noted. The task of doing this will be awarded to the highest bidder.

:eek2:

You're gonna make a fortune!

:eek2:

You're gonna make a fortune!

It's enough to make me not stick my head in the blender afterwards, that's for sure.

Well, okay. But you can call me a whore if you want.

Can't do that. We were going to get married at one point.

I would totally do you for money. Or the promise of money. Or if you just said the word money. Or the word "monkey". Or hello.

I would do you.

I can't be "done" anymore. I am kept now, darling Jhah.:wink:

Can't do that. We were going to get married at one point.

I can't be "done" anymore. I am kept now, darling Jhah.:wink:

Ah, I am struck and conflicted!

I am moved to celebration, to joy that you have found a keeping for your heart, and so want for song and festival at your happiness!

Yet, I am jealous, wounded to envy, despairing that you are not for my doing!

An apogee of glee at your fortune, a plunging crash of envy at your man's...

Fortunately, I celebrate and mourn in the same manner, with food and harlots.

If you're a grown man, bursting into tears when someone hits you isn't at least a little sad?

Would it be sad if a woman did it? More to the point, I'd hope everyone was tough and strong-willed enough to not cry but rather to defend themselves or something. The fact is that not everyone has that personality.

This does not make them any less respectable.

Well, since you used yourself as an example, it does look like you've been through a tougher life - you seem a little more innately hostile then average. So since you're obviously very angry about it, I'm not sure why you opposed his statement - it clearly had an effect on you. And as one human being ot another, I'm sorry that life dealt you that hand.

He could just be pissed that people are trying to say they know how divorce affected him better than he does.

Eh buh what? I think I missed some huge leap in mislogic here somewhere.

It's like he has that monk class ability that lets you jump as far as you want, only for him, it applies to conclusions.

Honestly, we are a nation of child abusers. Every time a couple is divorced, the kids are being sentenced to a much tougher life.

Good thing children are never abused or traumatized by married parents.

i think that feminsm has caused women to have a lot of rights but no responsibltys if they want all the rights of being like men then they should go to jail like them too!

Ok so, from my years of lurking I recognize that the thread isn't actually about this any more, so I'm actually the off-topic one by re-brining this up. That said, why is it just the women's fault? Yes, women have done things like this. But I'm sure there have been fathers who have neglected their parental duties, and you could blame society by saying that they don't encourage the man to be active in the child's life and encourages them to care about money and not show emotion etc., but somehow Dr. Laura manages to overlook this and just takes a shot at "the women's rights movement" for making women into bad mothers, even though I'm sure there were bad mothers before that.

Ok so, from my years of lurking I recognize that the thread isn't actually about this any more, so I'm actually the off-topic one by re-brining this up. That said, why is it just the women's fault? Yes, women have done things like this. But I'm sure there have been fathers who have neglected their parental duties, and you could blame society by saying that they don't encourage the man to be active in the child's life and encourages them to care about money and not show emotion etc., but somehow Dr. Laura manages to overlook this and just takes a shot at "the women's rights movement" for making women into bad mothers, even though I'm sure there were bad mothers before that.
It's a syndrome called "Dr. Laura is an Attention Whore Who Has to Make the Whole Universe Revolve Around Her." This disorder causes her to say all kinds of wtf bullshit in public so as to keep grabbing at public attention. Dr. Laura has earmarked a few pet issues that she likes to revisit over and over because they get her attention. One of her favorites is the Evils of Feminism(tm). Everything -- and I mean everything -- she says about it is pure fantasy, and the more outrageous, the better for her.

Hence her complete fabrication of some kind of social issue based on one isolated anecdote. Hence her complete bypassing of male parental resposibility issues. Hence her complete bypassing of the fact that bad parenting is not an ideological byproduct but has been with human beings since we evolved. Acknowledging facts is not part of her schtick.

It's long been my belief that equality has to be set to a certain standard that all people are held to. In terms of wages and benefits, the feminists are right on, but if we're still going to have some common ground, women can't be excused for crimes just for being women.

And on a social level, men need to femme up and cut the repression nonsense. Cry a little, get a g-string.

It's a syndrome called "Dr. Laura is an Attention Whore Who Has to Make the Whole Universe Revolve Around Her." This disorder causes her to say all kinds of wtf bullshit in public so as to keep grabbing at public attention. Dr. Laura has earmarked a few pet issues that she likes to revisit over and over because they get her attention. One of her favorites is the Evils of Feminism(tm). Everything -- and I mean everything -- she says about it is pure fantasy, and the more outrageous, the better for her.

Hence her complete fabrication of some kind of social issue based on one isolated anecdote. Hence her complete bypassing of male parental resposibility issues. Hence her complete bypassing of the fact that bad parenting is not an ideological byproduct but has been with human beings since we evolved. Acknowledging facts is not part of her schtick.
Clearly you're wrong as she had 2 (!) isolated anecdotes, which clearly means serious business!

Clearly you're wrong as she had 2 (!) isolated anecdotes, which clearly means serious business!
Curses! Successfully foiled again! Now I guess I'll have to start respecting that idiotic lying cow.



Or maybe not. ;)

Curses! Successfully foiled again! Now I guess I'll have to start respecting that idiotic lying cow.



Or maybe not. ;)

Sir, 2 is greater then 1! That clearly proves that my argument is correct!