In article ,
 "Hyerdahl"  wrote:
> mark_sobolewski{at}yahoo.com wrote:
> > Hyerdahl wrote:
> > > mark_sobolewski{at}yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > Hyerdahl wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > Providing social programs (as is done in EVERY western civilization)
> is
> > > not about any specific brand of morality;  cramming fundy religions
> > > down people's throats is unconstitutional.  See the differenc?
> >
> > "Germany has a much better healthcare system than the States" --
> > Women's Reproductive Rights marcher, DC, 2004
> >
> > Why do you only talk about "western" civilization?
>
> Are you suggesting I have to go to Mars to make a point?  :-)

I'm wouldn't suggest young women with your agenda go
to a non-white or non-US occupied country if they
want to play pretend equality with men. :-)

>  I admire
> western civilization and that is where I live.  Even when I retire it
> will be to a western civilization.  :-)

Indeed.  Your retirement will go a lot further in non-white
countries with a generally lower cost of living.
That's why the women's reproductive rights marcher didn't
want to go to Deutschland: She has to earn a living
and unemployment there is in double digits.

I don't blame you for wanting to leave California after
leftist policies have trashed the place.  Wise move.

> Don't you appreciate diversity?  China and Indonesia, for example, also
> > provide "social programs" but their moral focus is far
> > different than what you prefer.
>
> China is hardly a democracy, Mark.  That was what we were talking
> about, no?

Fine.  Feel free to suggest to the women's rights marcher
to move to, say, Mexico if she wants great socialist
programs and equality.  She should bring lots of money
for bribes though...

> > What "western" civilization has in common is a background
> > of charity and social works established by the early Christians
> > during Roman times who built shelters for families and
> > destitute women.
> >
> Every fundy religion that has gone before, has killed those who didn't
> believe in the 'ONE TRUE GOD'

And it's these "fundies", white guy slaveowner religious men
who wrote the constitution in this country and established
democracy in all of the other "western" democracies.

In the meantime, it's socialists who have killed more people
in the past century than everyone else throughout human history.

You were saying?

> That is what some of our third world
> brothers and sisters are facing now, in Islamic parts of the world.

Not a good place to change the subject to considering it's
a born-again Christian who granted women the vote
in Afghanisan and Iraq.

You were saying?

> > Atheism is a registered religion so forcing it down children's
> > throats in public schools is similar to what you accuse
> > the religious right of doing.
>
> Not at all.  Simply not teaching religion does not result in atheism
> which is the BELIEF that there is no god.

But it's not "simply not teaching" when students are prohibited
from expressing their religious beliefs (that pesky free
speech again.  These students must think they are in
China or something :-)

> Simply to not be able to
> support one god over another need not result in atheism.  It's up to
> PARENTS and not schools to bolster religious expression if that's what
> they want.

Sounds like a great argument for school vouchers for homeschoolers
or the public allowing the system to rot as they pull
their children out of them.

Yep, it's all working out.

> Then again, this is all moot> as 40% of 4th grade children in public
> schools fail basic reading and arithmetic standards and many career
> women seek out "sexist" Patriarchs to support them as they homeschool
> their children.
>
> Mark, are you actually suggesting that mothers care that much more
> about their kids than fathers?

Could you explain how men who are financially supporting
a SAH spouse care less about their children than
women who leave them in sub-standard schools for their
own selfish, lonely reasons?

> I'm amazed you're admitting that.  :-)

Me too!

> Yes, mothers would probably do whatever it takes to give to their kids.

No.  These women are asking men to do whatever it takes because
she lacks the ability...

>  Of course today, mothers have many more options than to slave for
> daddy.

Yeah, those 40% of kids probably found that out the hard way.

"Mommy, when can I be a client?" -- AT&T commercial

> (edit)
> > > > After almost 40 years of indoctrination, most women still
> > > > want "sexist" men and don't desire lesbo marriage.
> > > > Yep, human nature sure cannot be changed...
> > >
> >I can't imagine that any het woman would want sex with a woman or
>  that any gay woman would want sex with a man.
> >
> > This is just a sign that your imagination is limited. :-)
>
> Well, than that seems to leave bisexuality, no?

Even most full butch dykes can stomach having sex with a man
for procreative reasons.

> > Many gay women enjoy sex with men but don't connect with
> > them on an emotional level (I have a lesbian friend
> > who discussed this with me.)
>
> You don't have ANY friends, Mark, unless they are made up selfserving
> ones to mention here.

Oooooh!  So personal.  Why don't you take this up with your
"partner?" :-)

>  I don't need made-up friends to make my point
> here.

HAHAHAHAHA!  It's too easy.  Next.

>   Also, gay women often> seek out sex with heterosexual or
"het" men
> for
> > procreative reasons.
>
> Sperm is easy to cum by.

Yet, this is a reason that is "imaginable" for such women
to have sex with men for.  Oh, wait, you're trying to
change the subject because you're a soreloser.  :-)

If you were a better loser, you wouldn't find your
agenda losing more and more often...

> > > This brings to mind a poem of
> > > Robert Louis Stephenson, "The world is so full of a number of
> things;
> > > I'm sure we should all be as happy as kings."  You see Mark, it
> isn't
> > > an either/or proposition.  If you want a sexist man you are free to
> > > pursue him.  :-)
> >
> > ?!?!  I'm not interested in such men.  I'm just remarking that a
> > majority of women, especially heterosexual men, desire sexist
> > men far more than slacker non-sexist men.
>
> So you say, and yet, there are so many choices out there; be straight;
> be gay;

That's my point: "het" women are uninterested in the primary
choice that feminism gave them to be gay.

> be single; be married; be a parent; be childless;

Yep, aging spinster career women are so happy about the choice
to be childless.

hehehehehe.

> it's all ok.

Yep.  Epitaph for a 45 year old spinster childless career woman:
Buried by immigrant labor while Parg blows her SS check
in South America. :-)

You do realize that the nations these immigrants come from
are far more Patriarchal than even I ever dreamed?

>  You are vainly imagining that poor Dave Sim's sister wants a sexist
> man to go with her feminist career.  I just don't see that.

I don't know much about his sister.  If she's het, then
she certainly doesn't mind if the guy's sexist if he
backs that up by being a provider.

regards,
Mark Sobolewski


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/19/05 5:24:50 PM ---