On 11 Mar 2005 07:30:32 -0800, "Hyerdahl"  wrote:

>
>Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
>> On 10 Mar 2005 06:33:11 -0800, "Hyerdahl"
 wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
>> >
>> >> I was thinking myself that if either Condoleeza Rice or Hillary
>> >> Clinton or any woman became president, it's quite possible that
>the
>> >> government would subsidize or otherwise actively promote
>> >> gender-selection abortion, targeting males for extinction and that
>> >> behind a pink iron curtain, mass butcheries would begin.
>> >
>>
>> >:-)  :-)  :-)  You are such an insecure little Sim cockpuppet.  :-)
>> >It's funny, tho.  Here's the thing, women are already CHOOSING the
>> >families they want to have, here in the west.  When they choose to
>have
>> >male children, they also can choose how they are raised.
>>
>>
>> Well, I appreciate the concession, Puke.
>
>There was no "concession", Dave Sim;  just the observation that women
>continue to choose the types of familes THEY want.



Sure there was a concession, Puke, and you just repeated the
concession.  Keep it coming.



>> You used to deny that mothers were responsible for children who
>turned
>> out bad.
>
>????   Children who fail are the product of many social ills.  Using
>terms like "children who TURN OUT bad" are way too simplistic for the
>amount of societal problems that work against our nation's children,
>but I don't have the NEED to blame only one social group.  


Of course you do, Puke; you blame men for everything.

But you can't now because you just conceded (twice and counting) that
women are exercising their choices on how to raise families.  Women
must therefore be held responsible for the RESULTS of those choices.

You can't split the two ideas, Puke, any more than Shylock could take
a pound of Antonio's flesh without also spilling his blood.



>You do.
>You're very needy when it comes to your need to expose your bigotry and
>sexism.
>
>> But now, you appear to be acknowledging that women choose how their
>> kids are raised.
>
>Western women certainly have an abundance of choices in how their
>children are born and raised.  If a man isn't worthy of being a father,
>no western woman is legally forced to bear the unworthy seed in order
>to give him a son.  


And if a woman isn't worthy of being a mother, as you have pointed out
so many times, she often exercises her choice to become one anyway.


>AND, if the man is unworthy as a life partner, she
>need not include such a man in her family.  Blaming women isn't at
>issue here, 


No, of course not; for you, blaming MEN is the issue, since when you
are fully cognizant, you are only willing to conceive male-blameworthy
circumstances.

But the bottom line is that in two unguarded moments (and counting)
you have conceded that women have choices.  Therefore, women must
assume the blame when those choices go awry.


>as much as the acknowledgement that she need not remain
>with or have her children fathered by an unworthy man.
>
> So kids that turn out bad turn out bad due to bad
>> mothering, right?
>
>See above.  


I did.  You would have saved yourself a more painful spanking if you
had must said, "Right".


>Men who abandon their children still abandon them, and
>there are all kinds of other social issues that effect children.  


No Puke, we are not talking about men who abandon their children.
That's as far removed from this conversation as the War of 1812, but
it's a bone for you to chew on.


>So,
>no...we don't blame the mothers who stay for the actions of the fathers
>who don't.  And we don't blame women for being on the grassy knoll
>simply because we never solved the JFK assasignation.



No, but "we" seem to blame men for the choices that women make, and
the JFK homicide was solved in 1977, Puke, by a Baltimore, Maryland
gunsmith named Howard Donahue


>> >This has> >nothing to do with extinction,
>>> >
>> No, EXTINCTION has to do with extinction.  I was talking about women
>> planning the extinction of males, and you changed the subject.  I am
>> not talking about women choosing how male children are raised.
>>
>Your post was built on an article about a "feminist party", so it
>appears you don't really know where you're headed.  :-)  That being the
>case, women still don't have to bear the sexist seed of Dave Sim, and
>apparently, none have.  :-)> 


Dickless Davey Hemingway didn't have to continue to share a bed with
you, and apparently no one has replaced him.

>>



--------------------------------------
grizzlieantagonist{at}yahoo.com

"Ladies and gentlemen - let's have a round of applause for tonight's
player of the game - FRAN-CIS-CO SAN-N-N-N-TOS!
    - Brian Anthony (P.A. announcer at Grizzlie Stadium), June 11, 2004


"Populus me sibilat, at mihi plaudo."(The people
hiss at me, but I am well satisfied with myself).

    - Horace, the Roman poet


Logical positivism, dominant in American and
British universities, is suicidally bent upon
establishing the impossibility of knowing any-
thing.  (As Wyndham Lewis suggested in "Self
Condemned", the neo-positivist pedant reduces
himself to a mosquito, able to wound, nearly
invulnerable to counter-assault - but only an
insect, not a man).

     - Russell Kirk, Enemies of the Permanent
       Things


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/12/05 12:42:30 AM ---