John Templeton wrote:
> Hyerdahl wrote:
> > John Templeton wrote:
> > > Hyerdahl wrote:
> > > > John Templeton wrote:
> > > > > Hyerdahl wrote:
> > > > > > Mr. F. Le Mur wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:14:27 -0800,
"Society"
> > > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >"Ben"
 wrote in message
> > > > > > >
> > >news:1111687870.126829.148680{at}o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> John Templeton wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> > First of all, abortion
isn't a "fundy" law.
> > > >
> > > > Indeed.  Impeding an abortion is the fundy part. Not giving
equal
> > > > rights to womenis ALWAYS fundy inspired by men who want control
> > over
> > > > women.
> > >
> > > Once again, this has nothing to do with equal rights - you
already
> > lost
> > > that argument, remember?
> >
> > No, and apparently the courts are on my side.  :-)  I'm ok with
that.
> >
> Once agian, abortion has nothing to do with equal rights. Refer to
the
> point at  which you lost that argument.

I didn't lose the argument and the courts are STILL on my side.
>
> > And there's nothing wrong with committing murder for a moral
> > transgression?
> >
> > Abortion is not murder.  Get your facts straight.  The courts and I
> > agree on that.
> >
> It is, women just choose to use this technical argument as a
> rationalization for their crimes.
>
> Women who abort have every legal right to do so, and the courts
support them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Not giving equal rights to men is
ALWAYS fundy
> > > > > > > inspired by women who want control over men."
> > > >
> > > > ????  I don't see women with whips beating men who don't wear
> > beards in> Islam, do you?  It's patriarchal control of women that
leads> sexist > assholes.  Let's just consider how George Bush is
fighting
> > religious > fundamentalism abroad, while embracing it at home.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I didn't write this, so your reply is completely irrelevant to
me.
> > > Congratulations on fucking up yet again.
> >
> > I have replied to this post in its entirety and not specifically
JUST
> > to what you have written.  So it appears that you are the 'fuck
up'.
> So> name a law that takes away men's equal rights, dimwad.
> > > > >
> Well you should have used a separate post to respond to it so you
> didn't confuse your little female brain, as you have done so many
times
> in the past.

I have no confusion at all here.  None.  I can respond to you and
anyone esle who has responded here.

 Stop fucking up, fuckup. The types of laws are listed> above.
>
No they aren't.

> > >> Umm...parental custody laws, rape laws, domestic violenc>
> > laws...should > I keep going?
> > > >
> > > > If a man is a parent, he has the same rights to be a primary
> parent > as> a woman.
> > >
> > > He barely ever gets custody AND has to pay child support on top
of
> > it.
> >

> > If he has chosen, during the marriage, NOT to be a primary parent
to
> > his child, he has made his choice already.  The courts can't
pretend
> he> > was a primary parent just to make him feel better at divorce.
> >
> Yeah, IF. What about the cases where he is just as or more involved
in
> his children's lives than the mother? Stop skipping around the issue
> with your specifications and address it "in its entirety".
> >
When mostly male judges determine custody to a father who has been a
primary parent, more fathers than mothers get that custody, and it
becomes an issue of bias.
>
> > > > If a man is raped he has the same legal recourse as a woman.
> > > >
> > > No one would believe him, and he'd be laughed at in his
community,
> > > while the woman would be pitied and spoiled.
> >
> > So you agree then that the laws on bodily rights and rape are the
> same for both sexes.  Good, now we're getting somewhere.  Women don't
rape> men, generically and that is why it's hard beign believed when a
man
> > engages in intercourse with a woman three times and then yells
rape.
> > :-)
> >
> The laws are the same, but not how they are applied, making the LAW
> slanted.

I'm glad you agree the laws are gender neutral, because the only way
for you to show the laws are applied differently is to PROVE IT.  You
have not.  Way to go.

 Male rape does occur from over-slutty females such as youself
> - you just proved my point. What about in cases where he hasn't had
sex
> with her before? Would it be hard to believe a woman who had had sex
> with a man before and then claimed she was raped? What about wife
rape?
> Stop making a fool of yourself, you just applied a double standard,
> which you were formerly so against.
>
What are you talking about, dimbulb.  I clearly showed you a situation
where anyone would have difficulty proving rape if he got his willy up
three times in one hour and then yells rape.  That's not bias.  That's
just common sense.

> > > > If a man is domestically abused, he has the same rights a woman
> > has.
> > > >
> > > Once again, he most likely wouldn't be believed, unless he had
> > physical> > > evidence, while the woman would.
> >
> > You don't seem to understand the difference between having equal
laws
> > and being believed.  The LAWS are equal.  Juries believe whom they
> will believe.  That's what makes things equal.  If you want to
convince
> > juries about DV against men, feel free to do so.
> >
> The LAWS *are* equal, you're right.

Thank you for admitting the truth, finally.

 But the manner in which the laws are applied aren't.

And, if you are able to PROOVE that the courts will look it it, but you
have not, Simpleton.  The courts are not going to believe your idea of
bias simply because you want them to.  Any court bias must be PROVEN.
You can't do that by stomping up and down or holding your breath until
you turn blue.

 If a man who was raped isn't believed by the judge
> or jury, there won't be any conviction, dummy.

That's very true.  A jury must find the facts and testimony believable
for men or women who complain of rape.  It's equal; it's the same for
both.  Don't blame me because most folks won't likely believe a man who
claims to have been raped three times in an hour, couldn't explain to
the jury why he was 'prepared for intercourse'.

 This is a double standard, and so the judicial system is biased
against men in this respect.

There is no "double standard", Steve;  the jury has the right to
believe or disbelieve any witness.  If a lawyer is representing a male
victim of rape, that lawyer should present evidence of male rape.

You know I'm right. Stop fighting those feelings of> embarrassment and
shame.

You think a person who is winning a debate should feel "ebarassment and
shame"?  It seems to me that I'm not even blushing.  :-)

> >  Everyone here knows that much domestic abuse against men occurs,
but
> > goes unreported because men are stronger than women and can tough
it
> > out physically and emotionally.
> >
 IN my county the figures for abused men who come forward are 2.8.
> Every month or so, the same two men complain about abuse, because
> their > wives kick them out.   Even tho no abuse has ever been found,
the men> get DV vouchers and counseling.  The .8 represents any other
man
> coming> into the system over the course of a year.  Here, abused men
have > recourse, even when abuse is not proven.
> >
> 2.8 what? So you're arguing that DV against men doesn't occur, ever?

Can you read, Simpleton?  I argued the reverse, nut case, that we have
2.8 men who request assist for domestic abuse.  I'm not in a position
to determine whether or not those 2.8 men were abused, but they do get
assist. based on their claim of abuse.

> Dumbass. How many women with unsubstantiated claims have been
believed
> by law enforcement? How do you know it's the same 2 men? Really, stop
> verbally soiling yourself.

I found out by inquiring.  If you call your county supervisor's office,
they can find out many things, including the numbers and whether or not
the people are the same people.  They will NOT divulge identity,
however.
You seem to be the one who's soiling himself, dear.

This includes minor things like scratching during arguments,
throwing> things, etc.
> >
> > So you think that a shelter should be built for men who are
scratched
> > during an argument?  :-)   Actual domestic abuse is much more
serious
> > than that, and shelters are built for those who have faced serious
> > abuse issues.  There are also many homeless shelters for men.'
> >
> Okay, let's put abused women in homeless shelters then. And if a
woman
> was scratched or smashed over the head with something, it's not
> domestic abuse? Look at both sides of the argument before continuing
to
> shame yourself.

The serious nature of domestic abuse is not about a "scratch" per se;
it's about reasonably feeling threatened, often based on past abuse.
And again, men can certainly get a voucher in my county, if they've
been "scratched" during a domestic dispute.You need to do more than
keep going, Steve;  you need to provide some meat on those bones.  Most
men already know they have equalrights> at law but also that men don't
make the same social choices.
> > >
> If you want to believe I'm "Steve", that's fine. Not my fault you
> don't> > believe there can be two people who think alike.
> >
 I certainly do believe there are people who "think alike" about
> issues  but not ones who post alike.  :-)  Your lack of writing style
has given you away.  You have few points to make that can be supported,
much like Steve Imparl.
> >
> I've supported every agument that you've ever presented against me,
you
> just choose to ignore logic because it shakes the foundations of your
> misguided beliefs.

I don't base my argument on mere "beliefs", Steve; I'm not into
religion, as you may recall.  I prefer to base my arguments on law and
facts, and I leave the "beliefs" part to those who can't argue law OR
facts.  :-)

 And *my* writing style? Hehe I'm capable of writing
> pretty damn well, which has impressed you for the past few weeks.

Not really.  You are the same dweeb who posted unsupported debates
before.   I'm sure you'd like to have more valuable debate points, but
you don't.  That's what makes you so easy to recognize.

> That's more than I can say for you, who uses every possible flaw in
> argumentation on a regular basis.

Well, that's true; I'm easily able to point out every flaw in every
emotional argument you have posted, on a regular basis.  Logic still
beats emotion every time.  BTW, I have no objection to grant money
being provided for proven needs. In > fact, a while back there was some
kind of post showing a battered men's> shelter being built.  If there
are enough men to warrant such, it can > be provided, with PROOF of the
need.
>
> See? This is what I was just talking about, once again you didn't
> address the issue.

You were the one who changed the "issue" from abortion debate to
domestic abuse of men, no?  Methinks Steve Imparl lives in an alternate
universe.

Get a decent education and maybe you might provide> some useful
insight. Or was that impossible because of gender bias in schools?

Even if I had zero "education" I could beat you hands down, in any
legal debate, just as I have done here.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/30/05 4:47:46 PM ---