"Doug Anderson"  wrote in message
news:3960q7F5uqpoeU1{at}individual.net...
> "John Royer"  writes:
>
>> "Doug Anderson" 
wrote in message
>> news:395sb0F5u7ve5U2{at}individual.net...
>> > "John Royer"  writes:
>> >
>> >> "Doug Anderson"
 wrote in message
>> >> news:393gcnF5rq6lpU4{at}individual.net...
>> >> > dg411{at}FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "JWB"
(jwb3333__takeoutallthis__{at}excite.com) writes:
>> >> >> > "John Royer"
 wrote in message
>> >> >> > news:Ud%Wd.6749$fW4.231944{at}news20.bellglobal.com...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> If it would be unfair to say that all
women are airheads because
>> >> >> >> most
>> >> >> >> women are not, and it would be unfair
to say that all kids are
>> >> >> >> bad,
>> >> >> >> because most kids are not, why is it ok
to say that men have
>> >> >> >> maintained
>> >> >> >> superior priveleges most of the time,
when most men have not?
>> >> >> >> Or does the history book you have not
write and record the fact
>> >> >> >> that
>> >> >> >> for
>> >> >> >> every woman that is killed violently, 4
men are killed
>> >> >> >> violently.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > how many (of both sexes) are killed by men,
and how many by
>> >> >> > women?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How is it better for a man to be killed by
another man, rather than
>> >> >> by
>> >> >> a woman ? Your statement implies this.
>> >> >
>> >> > No it doesn't imply that.
>> >> >
>> >> > John is implying that feminism is at fault because
more men die
>> >> > violently than women.  This is a tough argument to
maintain in the
>> >> > face of who it is that does the killing (mostly men,
not feminists).
>> >> Again the fallacy of your reasoned discourse  comes
through. I in no
>> >> way
>> >> implied feminism is responsible for the disparate number of male to
>> >> female
>> >> deaths. My point is that as a society if we are going to address
>> >> wrongs
>> >> does
>> >> it not make more sense to pay attention to the greater evil?
>> >
>> > I see.  Yes it does make sense.  So how do you go about reducing
>> > violent death?  So far (in spite of imprisoning a larger percentage of
>> > our population than any other western country) the only way the US has
>> > found to reduce violent death is to wait for demographics to do it
>> > (which is what is happening right now).
>> >
>> >> Feminism does
>> >> not support this. They want the funding directed to womens issues
>> >> only.
>> >
>> > Actually "feminism" doesn't get much funding.  And
I don't believe
>> > your claim is accurate.
>>
>>
>> are you trying to assert that neither of our governments fund feminism.
>
> Certainly the US government doesn't fund feminism.
>
>> canada
>> National Action Council Status of Women
>> U.S. VAWA
>> Canada
>> How many womens shelters? How many mens shelters?
>> U.S. how many womens shelters, how many mens shelters?
>
> Firstly, most shelter money doesn't come from the US government.
>
> Secondly, by picking and choosing individual projects you can get any
> result you want.
>
> Where do the big dollars go in the US bduget?  You've got your
> military (primary beneficiaries: men, at lost of different level),
> corporate bailouts, (again, primary beneficiaries are men), etc.
>
>> > Another way to reduce violent death for men is to stop invading other
>> > countries which don't pose a threat to the US.  I don't think feminism
>> > as a whole has a stand on that, but the feminists I know favor that
>> > policy.
>>
>> So your assertion is that the U.S. is responsible for the violent deaths
>> of
>> men?
>
> We're certainly responsible for the 1000+ US soldiers (mostly men!)
> who've died in Iraq.  (But I don't think we invaded Iraq at the request
> of the feminist conspiracy which is secretly controllying the
> universe.  Do you?)
>
>> Let me be clear with a rhetorical question, I have a grandson, he is
>> five,
>> at what point and age does he become a murderer or a violent offender, or
>> a
>> rapist?
>
> I'm not asserting he ever becomes that.  Is that your plan for him?
>
>> If boys are such risks, why has this society ( Anglo Saxon ) such a
>> vested interest in making him so?DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT MEN ARE THE
>> ONLY
>> ONES DRIVING THIS AGENDA?
>
> The invasion of Iraq?  Driven by men.  Most domestic violence?  Driven by
> men.
>
> I don't understand what you are asking.
>
>> That only men fight to protect their interests, that men are that cruel.
>
> Now you are changing the subject.  You _were_ talking about violent death.
>
> See _I_ don't think that only men protect their interest or that only
> men are cruel.
>
> I think your problem is that emotionally _you_ believe that, though
> you realize intellectually you are wrong.  So your argument isn't with
> me (_I_ don't think women are better than men) it is with yourself.
ROTFLMAO! You have got to be kidding. You actually think?

> Somehow you believe emotionally that women are better than men, and
> the fact that you are wrong about this causes you pain.

Nice try Dougie, the fact is that we could bury you in fact and you have
nothing to back it up with. i'm not going to respond to your idiotic
comments with regard to what you think I THINK!



 (And
> interferes with rational analysis.)
>
>
>> If
>> it were so, then how come women are not our lap dogs? If men wanted to,
>> it
>> could be so and there isn't a whole lot women could do about it, is
>> there?
>> Yet, in this culture, women are not, why? It's precisely because of the
>> fact
>> that the average woman has not been any more mistreated than the average
>> man. BOTH have been manipulated, mistreated, brutalized by the
>> priveledged
>> few, male and female.
>> This culture of feminism is marginalizing our boys, our men. It is
>> creating
>> fear of men unless they toe the feminist line.
>> YOU are a perfect example of this. Instead of acknowledging that yes
>> women
>> did have SOME complaints and fixing them you are now complicit in a much
>> greater agenda. You have sold your soul to the women. You are a pathetic
>> subject. Trust me, Nazi collaborators got theirs, Feminazi
>> collaborator,you'll get yours.
>
> Again with the N*zis.
>
> By the way, the _real_ analogy is that your behavior mimics the way
> the Nazis villified the jews before exterminating them.
>
> (snip discussion of how serfs were slaves, which I have no argument
> with, but seems irrelevant to me.
>
> snip also re-assertion that 90% of something undefined goes towards
> women's health issues.
>
> snip also a bunch of rhetorical questions which seem aimed at establishing
> the idea that men should not be responsible for children they father)

Dougie you can try the distraction route. I'm not buying. You have shown
yourself here to this group, as unarmed when it comes to reasoned discourse.
You have, along with the other gate keepers here shown yourselves to be
completely lacking in any basic areas of discussion. Your elements of
persuasion using rudimentary elements of basic psychology are easily
discernible.
You had a chance to actually show the folks in here a reasoned discourse.
Instead you defaulted to innuendo, mindless arguments with nothing to back
it up.
In fact if I may be so crude, you are an Iraqi tank. One forward gear, three
reverse gears.




--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/8/05 8:08:38 PM ---