_TR_ wrote:
> bluesmama wrote:

But I don't believe all men are rapists and that's all they are.
> > Last time I checked, my driver's license didn't say "Marilyn
French".
>
> At last, an unqualified statement from you.  Did it hurt much?
> Now the only remaining task is to determine its sincerity.  No
evidence of
> that, so far.  But I'm generous.  I'll allow you to convince me, if
you
> can.

There's no such thing as an unqualified statement. But you're stuck
firmly in your either-or absolutist thinking, so there's no point
arguing the point with you. Bigots can't see those shades of grey,
anyway. I'm a feminist, and therefore in your view, everything I say is
suspect.

> >> Since I'm not a feminist, I'll be honest
> >
> > Not biased, either, apparently.
>
> Of course I'm biased against feminism.  Feminism is a cult of
victimist
> fools who villify men as a political tactic.  Feminists have taken
the
> practice of sexism to new depths.  You can BET that I'm biased
against such
> a sick ideology as feminism.

There we go. So why bother responding to the posts? It certainly isn't
to learn anything about how a feminist and a woman might think.

> >> and admit that I haven't read the
> >> source of the quote.  However, I have not seen anyone, feminist or
> >> otherwise, dispute the accuracy of the quote.
> >
> > I believe I said I'd consider the quote accurate, having no
evidence
> > one way or the other, for argument's sake.
>
> My misuse of vocabulary.  I should have written "... dispute the
validity
> of the quote."  You are welcome to do so, but YOU apparently cannot
unless
> a man shows you how.

I'm used to men who have a better grasp of the English language, I
guess.

> >> But the quote displays a sentiment that seems to resonate with
victimist
> >>  fools such as you,
> >
> > Just checked again. Nope. I'm not Marilyn French.
>
> So what.  That doesn't prevent you from capitalising on her
propaganda.

And the proof of that would be...what exactly?

> >> and so far you have done NOTHING to reject the sentiment.  After
all,
> >> it's GREAT feminist propganda, isn't it?  Wouldn't want to lose
any
> >> of that, would you?
> >
> > I don't believe men are rapists and that's all they are.
>
> Why?
>
> > How much clearer can I get on this.
>
> Much.  You can explain why men, even non-feminist men, are not the
villains
> your cult makes them out to be.

You're the gender under attack. Explain it yourself.

> > If I believed all men were rapists and that's all they are, why the
hell
> > would I marry one and raise two daughters with him?
>
> Feminist marry witless men.  They like the feel of control.  Why
should
> your alleged trained rat be any different?

Oh I let him wear the pants from time to time, don't worry.

> But here's something more important:  this is a TEXT-ONLY medium.
Your
> claims of the idyllic feminist family are irrelevent.  You cannot
offer
> your family for proof; you only expect your opponents to take it on
faith
> that you, a feminist, would bother to tell the truth.

I can offer whatever I like for proof. I'm a feminist. You're not going
to believe it anyway. I could quote studies and statistics until hell
froze over and you'd dismiss them as "feminist" because they didn't say
what you believe is true. You don't want proof. You just want
compliance. Keep wishing.

> But don't worry too much, little one.  Feminists pull that stunt
> frequently.  Your girlfriend Carol Ann proudly proclaimed a
"difficult
> divorce" from her husband years ago, but now, just to paint herself
as pure
> and pious, she claims that she was never married.

And here I thought I got married just to get a green card and a house
in the suburbs. Who knew marriage would be such a versatile thing?

> Just as soon as a feminist gets called on her vile beliefs, she
inevitably
> pulls the "but my perfect little family proves me right" tactic.
You're
> just following the herd, and they do it ONLY because they have no
effective
> rebuttal to an argument.

I'm a feminist. No rebuttal I could offer would satisfy you, because
you're so blinded by your own imagined brilliance.

> > Get your head out of your ass and pay attention.
>
> Hey, I've got an attention surplus, bimbo.  You still can't cover the
> past-due balance.

Didn't like that, huh? I thought the head in the ass thing was pretty
good. Glad you enjoyed it.

> >>> Studies and statistics can be found to back up either claim.
> >>
> >> No.  There is NO study that can convince an intelligent,
> >> free-thinking person that all men are potential rapists,
> >> or that any substantial number of men are potential rapists.
> >> Nor will there ever be such a study.

You have no idead what an intelligent, free-thinking person might
think.

> > There may be no study that you would accept. But your bias isn't my
> > problem.
>
> This is my reason for asking you "Why" when you claimed that you
don't
> believe all men are rapists.  Not all men are rapists, nor are they
even
> *potential* rapist, and this is as evident to anyone with a
functioning
> intellect as it is that the sun will rise on the following morn.

The sun will most likely rise tomorrow. Barring some unforseen
circumstance, of course. Didn't a bunch of men a long time ago
postulate the theory that the earth was flat and the sun revolved
around the earth? Bet they had studies out the ass to back that up,
too. Didn't make them right.

> Of course I won't accept any such study.  I KNOW that not all men
potential
> rapists, and I know that a miniscule portion of all men are either
> motivated or psychologically capable of doing such a thing.

You believe all men are not potential rapists. You can't know anything
for sure, but that's where we get into the whole argument that so many
men are afraid of and will quote "facts" in defense of. A fact is only
a fact until it is disproven. You can be pretty sure something's true,
but 100%? Nope.

> You, on the other hand, reserve judgement until you see a properly
> sanitised feminist study that supports your cult's victimist needs.

Oh poor me. Hey listen - explain to me how I can be pussywhipping men
and being a victim at the same time? Gosh, I'm versatile.

> >> There surely are *feminist* "studies" that are designed
specifically
> >> for one-dimensional, non-thinking, emotion-besotted,
victimism-worshiping
> >> fools such as you and your herd.  But applying the word
"study" to
these
> >> works of fiction is nothing more than a feminist propaganda
device.

...."one-dimensional, non-thinking, emotion-besotted,
victimism-worshiping fools..."

> > Dishonesty pops up in every camp.

And so, apparently, does intolerance and bigotry. What a surprise.

> Dishonesty PERVADES the feminist camp.  Without deceipt and
treachery, your
> cult could not survive.

Oh it's true. We feminists need deceit (no p, sugar) and treachery like
we need oxygen, expensive diamond rings, Lexuses and total world
domination.

> > Even yours.
>
> So, which is mine?

Judging from the general bad-temperedness of your posts, I'd have to
say it was some kind of Emotions Anonymous camp. But I don't know that
for sure, of course.

> > So are all statistics and studies considered suspect?
>
> Yes.  Those that are promoted as unbiased and scientific in method
MUST be
> consisered suspect and subjected to unrelenting scrutiny.  This is
why
> feminist "studies" are not valid researsh.  They're merely packets of
> propaganda.

Not the masculinist studies, though. Just the facts, Ma'am.

> > Oh no....just the "feminist" ones that disagree with your
male-centered
> > view of the truth.
>
> Really?  Let's just expose that statement to some of the scrutiny you
> feminists fear:
>
> 1)  What, specifically, is my "view of the truth"?
> 2)  How is my actual "view of the truth" in any way
"male-centered"?

Read your own words. You want my guesses? Alrighty.

1) You're intolerant and afraid of opinions which don't agree with
yours.

2) You've got a pathological hatred and fear of women with strong
opinions, and believe them to be less competent, intelligent, and
honest than men.

> >>> I just have to trust my personal experience with men
> >>
> >> The extent of your "personal experience with men"
is limitted to
> >> pussywhipped male feminists who behave the way you want them to
> >> behave.  Blokes who don't behave in the prescribed manner are
> >> ignored, at best, or more typically villified, as you show with
> >> your behaviour in this newsgroup.  Hence, you're trust is
misdirected.
> >
> > The extent of my personal experience with men has obviously been a
lot
> > more congenial and healthy than your personal experience with
women.
>
> Really?  Please describe my person experience with women, and do it
> accurately.  You cannot.  You merely lie about your experiences and
project
> your failures onto others.  Yep.   That's what feminists do.

That was my point. You have no idea what my personal experience with
men is or is not limited to, yet you somehow believe you have the
privilege to comment on it. Sometimes the only way to point out the
flaw in someone's thinking is to parrot it right back at them. Then it
seems unfair to them, and voila! They realize the error of their ways.

> > I love several men.
>
> You don't understand the concept of love.  You confuse the term with
a form
> of utility and convenience.

See? Again, there you go, claiming now not only to know my history, but
my very thought processes and emotions. If that's not arrogance, I
don't know what is.

> > And - gosh - I'm only sleeping with one of them.
>
> You may wish that you were.  However, your empty and impotent claims
do NOT
> mask your lack of a point or a rebuttal.  You could just as well
claim that
> you've birthed thousands and married thousands, and your claim would
be no
> more or no less provable or pertinent as is your fables of the fine
> feminist flock.

I may wish that I were what? Sleeping with one of them? Sleeping with
all of them? Do you have some kind of point? Besides getting in another
dig at feminism, I mean.

> Keep trying, though.  It's pleasing to see you admit that you have no
> argument, even if you do it indirectly and unintentionally.

I'm a feminist and a woman who disagrees with you. Any argument I might
come up with, no matter how fine, wouldn't get past your bias.

> >>> and my belief in  the inherent goodness of people, male or
female.
> >>
> >> You don't believe in the "inherent goodness of
people".  You are a
> >> feminist.  You believe in the eternal oppression of hewpwess
wimmins
> >> at the hand of dem eeebbil mens.

You have no idea what I do and no not believe. Yet you insist you do.
Why is that?

> > You do not get to decide what I believe.
>
> I get to *describe* what you believe, bimbo, and that is PRECISELY
what I
> have done.  I'll do it now, and I'll do it accurately.  I'll do it
'til the
> rest of your herd moos their way home, and you will do NOTHING about
it but
> whine, lie and flee in anger.

Describe how much of an intolerant, arrogant and close-minded bigot you
are. That's a description I'd love to read.

> > Not anymore.
>
> Not "anymore"?  What a victimist piece of shit you are.

Ooohh. I'm crushed.

> > That was the old days.
>
> What "old days"?  Do I sense a victimist whine emerging?   Let's see,
shall
> we ...
>
> > You don't like the way things are now,
>
> I like the way things are now JUST FINE, bimbo.  I especially like it
when
> victimist fools like you get caught out.

You're pretty cranky for someone who likes things the way they are now
just fine.

> > now that you're not in charge of everything?
>
> Yep.  A victimist whine.  You assume, for the sake of your victimist
whine,
> that I have been "in charge of everything" at any time and that I
have a
> desire to be "in charge of everything".   Here's yet another clue for
you,
> bimbo:  I'm in charge of EXACTLY what I need and want to be in charge
of.

Bimbo's a favorite word for you, isn't it? Feminist getting too long to
type?

> > Too bad for you.
>
> Actually it's quite good for me.  I very much enjoy seeing you wear
your
> own feminist cowshit all over your face.

A lot of barnyard references keep popping up in your post. You're not
one of those big rubber boots and velcro gloves guys, are you?

> >>> What it seems you don't understand, Andre, is that anyone can
> >>> conduct a study, pick and choose the results or statistics that
> >>> back up the claim they're trying to prove, and publish their
> >>> "findings".
> >>
> >> What you don't understand, bimbo, is that *real* studies require a
> >> rigourous adherence to scientific method and exhaustive scrutiny
of
> >> any so-called facts that arise thereof.  Feminist "research"
dismisses
> >> this procedure as an oppressive tool of the patriarchy.  Feminist
> >> "research" starts with a conclusion and rejects any data that
contradicts
> >> the predetermined outcome that women MUST be so very hard put-upon
by men
> >> while being oh-so-elegantly superiour.

Openminded again, I see.

> > Same old rhetoric, feminists can't be trusted.
>
> They most certainly cannot.  You can provide NO evidence that a
feminist
> CAN be trusted.

I'm a feminist. I can't provide any evidence you'd accept. You've got
that whole testosterone-colored glasses thing going on.

> > Dishonest research starts with a conclusion and rejects and data
that
> > contradicts it.
>
> Yep.  That's feminist research for ya.
>
> > Feminist or Masculinist or Marxist or and kind of "ist"
you want to

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