Hyerdahl wrote:
> 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.

Not necessarily.  There are those who believe that an abortion is the
taking of a life.  It has nothing to do with "control", but framing the
argument in those terms allows people to gloss over the realities such
as partial birth infanticide.


> > > >
> > > > 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.

An over-reliance on courts indicates a lack of a solid moral
foundation; it becomes a matter of whether or not something is legal,
not if it's right or wrong.  Remember, the courts used to think slavery
was just fine, as was segregation.

> >
> > > And there's nothing wrong with committing murder for a moral
> > > transgression?
> > >
> > > Abortion is not murder.

It doesn't meet the legal definition.  As to whether or not it's
murder, that's another issue.

  Get your facts straight.  The courts and I
> > > agree on that.

And I'm thinking the courts aren't looking to consult with you to get
your opinion before making a decision.

> > >
> > 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.

Ah, the old "acquiescence" argument.  But, didn't *she*
"acquiesce" to
giving up the ability to build a career when she became a stay at home
parent?

>  The courts can't
> pretend
> > he> > was a primary parent just to make him feel better at divorce.

Primary parenting also involves generating the cash to bring the
resources to bear to make it possible for one parent to stay at home.
It's interesting that you don't see this as primary, but when child
support is owed, all of a sudden this money is crucial, and rightfully
so, but this would indicate the money was just as vital, i.e.,
"primary", before.

> > >
> > 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.

Except that's not happening.

> >
> > > > > 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.

Check the custody rates between men and women.  Check the arrest rates
for the same crimes.  Check the prosecution and sentencing disparities,
almost universally in women's favor.

>
>  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,

No, actually, they won't.  Courts aren't investigative bodies.

 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.

It's already been established.  Judges, however, tend to run with the
pack and rely too heavily on precedent and a fear of being over-ruled
from above.

> You can't do that by stomping up and down or holding your breath
until
> you turn blue.

You're right, that generally doesn't work for men.  Feminists, however,
have had great success with that very tactic.

>
>  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'.

I don't know about this particular case, but I do know that society in
general will believe a woman claiming rape more easily than they will a
man.  And juries are drawn from society--in the case of the O.J.
jurors, apparently the stupidest segment.

>
>  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.

As you know, I don't as a rule accuse you of lying, but this is so
preposterous on its face that I simply don't believe it.  You're trying
to claim that every year, the same couple of men show up seeking
assistance?  Sorry, but this simply isn't credible.


>
> > 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.

Interesting.  When I read this, I tried it here.  Not only would they
not give me any names, I was told I couldn't be informed if it was the
same clients every time or not.  I then asked if it was different in
California, and was told it shouldn't be.

>  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.

Obviously not, or radical feminism and leftism in general would not
make any advances.


>  BTW, I have no objection to grant money
> being provided for proven needs. In > fact, a while back there was

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 100