Should critizing women as a 'whole' be illegal?

[Questioner]

I'm of the persuasion that criticizing or attacking "women" as a whole, is the antithesis to anything resembling a civilization or 1st world country, given that, whether one invokes biology, the evolution of the law and civilization, or anything else, women of different walks of life, of course do make and have made civilization; as an example, a woman of 'higher' status in an era past, whether one invokes Joan of Arc, Marie Curie, Margaret Thatcher, or anyone else, would have had higher overall 'status' and influence than a more 'ordinary' woman today typically does; regardless of what legal changes or element of purely 'arbitrary' discrimination not based on merits has been legally addressed; with fixed circumstances like family, birth, and so on and so forth having often tended to play a bigger role in the past, than at least theoretically today, in which more upward mobility and meritocraty is allegedly available, than in many times of the past.

Obviously were would be a huge difference in criticizing "a woman", or a specific subset, organization, or group of women in theory or practice, or specific actions thereof, whether one is talking about Sarah Palin, or Sarah Palin's "campaign team", or Hillary Clinton or otherwise.

But any childish notion which is predicated on attacking "women" as a whole, or predicated on contextually flawed myths, is ultimately a civilizational determent, and I see no further reason to allow such a juvenile thing to continue to persist.

As an example, take some freak who believe he was 'entitled' to sex simply because he exists, or that a date or a miserable, divorce prone marriage somehow entitles him to "sex" or so on and so forth, even if he invokes some mythos non-humorously about 'men', the reality is that in times past, he would've been quite a bit worse off than he was today.

In an 'ancient' era of male and female monarchs, it can be safely presumed that the king may simply have him, or other 'lower status' men into a eunuch and forced him to serve in the queens harem, rather than allowing or letting such more the inferior variety, whether one invokes evolutionary psychology, as per Pinker, the law, society, and civilization, or anything else, to simply exist and persist in his ugly and culturally hidieous delusion.

 

[ReinyDays]

Let us put men and women together
See which one is smarter
Some say men, but I say no
Women run the men like a puppet show

It ain't me
It's the people that say
Men are leading the women astray
But I say, it's the women today
Smarter than the man in every way

-- Norman Span

 

[Questioner]

Let us put men and women together
See which one is smarter
Some say men, but I say no
Women run the men like a puppet show

It ain't me
It's the people that say
Men are leading the women astray
But I say, it's the women today
Smarter than the man in every way

-- Norman Span

Some will argue about such dichotomies until they're blue in the face, one 'controlling' the other or vice versa, instead of singing, dancing, lovemaking, more beautiful and sensous things of that fairer nature.

In comparsion, I little in the way worth controlling to begin with, particularily if one is something of a 'freak' when it comes to the impotence and ineptitude by which they attempt to control, manipulate, negatively influence the circumstances or forces around them to want of anything akin to even a a quaint little child's level of emotional, social intelligence, and or anything akin to aptitude in those regards.... quite funny if not pathetic, archaic, and outdated at the same time, and whatever other ugly 19th century, anti-intellectual archaisms and other nonsense said ugly, false, bad and ineffectual things are so stupidly, pathetically, impotently, and defectively associated as, and or with at that same time...

 

[ReinyDays]

Not sure what you're saying here ... but I think you should stop treating women this way ... maybe you'll get some second dates ... just a suggestion ...

 

[Questioner]

Not sure what you're saying here ... but I think you should stop treating women this way ... maybe you'll get some second dates ... just a suggestion ...

Treating them what way, exactly?

Was that to me or the person I responded to?

 

[ReinyDays]

I'm the only other person in this thread ... so I'm the one you're responding to ... that's my question to you, how are you treating women, exactly? ...

 

[anynameyouwish]

I'm of the persuasion that criticizing or attacking "women" as a whole, is the antithesis to anything resembling a civilization or 1st world country, given that, whether one invokes biology, the evolution of the law and civilization, or anything else, women of different walks of life, of course do make and have made civilization; as an example, a woman of 'higher' status in an era past, whether one invokes Joan of Arc, Marie Curie, Margaret Thatcher, or anyone else, would have had higher overall 'status' and influence than a more 'ordinary' woman today typically does; regardless of what legal changes or element of purely 'arbitrary' discrimination not based on merits has been legally addressed; with fixed circumstances like family, birth, and so on and so forth having often tended to play a bigger role in the past, than at least theoretically today, in which more upward mobility and meritocraty is allegedly available, than in many times of the past.

Obviously were would be a huge difference in criticizing "a woman", or a specific subset, organization, or group of women in theory or practice, or specific actions thereof, whether one is talking about Sarah Palin, or Sarah Palin's "campaign team", or Hillary Clinton or otherwise.

But any childish notion which is predicated on attacking "women" as a whole, or predicated on contextually flawed myths, is ultimately a civilizational determent, and I see no further reason to allow such a juvenile thing to continue to persist.

As an example, take some freak who believe he was 'entitled' to sex simply because he exists, or that a date or a miserable, divorce prone marriage somehow entitles him to "sex" or so on and so forth, even if he invokes some mythos non-humorously about 'men', the reality is that in times past, he would've been quite a bit worse off than he was today.

In an 'ancient' era of male and female monarchs, it can be safely presumed that the king may simply have him, or other 'lower status' men into a eunuch and forced him to serve in the queens harem, rather than allowing or letting such more the inferior variety, whether one invokes evolutionary psychology, as per Pinker, the law, society, and civilization, or anything else, to simply exist and persist in his ugly and culturally hidieous delusion.

soon as a saw which moron posted this I didn't bother to read it.....

give me the short version: who do you want to kill today?

 

[Questioner]

I'm of the persuasion that criticizing or attacking "women" as a whole, is the antithesis to anything resembling a civilization or 1st world country, given that, whether one invokes biology, the evolution of the law and civilization, or anything else, women of different walks of life, of course do make and have made civilization; as an example, a woman of 'higher' status in an era past, whether one invokes Joan of Arc, Marie Curie, Margaret Thatcher, or anyone else, would have had higher overall 'status' and influence than a more 'ordinary' woman today typically does; regardless of what legal changes or element of purely 'arbitrary' discrimination not based on merits has been legally addressed; with fixed circumstances like family, birth, and so on and so forth having often tended to play a bigger role in the past, than at least theoretically today, in which more upward mobility and meritocraty is allegedly available, than in many times of the past.

Obviously were would be a huge difference in criticizing "a woman", or a specific subset, organization, or group of women in theory or practice, or specific actions thereof, whether one is talking about Sarah Palin, or Sarah Palin's "campaign team", or Hillary Clinton or otherwise.

But any childish notion which is predicated on attacking "women" as a whole, or predicated on contextually flawed myths, is ultimately a civilizational determent, and I see no further reason to allow such a juvenile thing to continue to persist.

As an example, take some freak who believe he was 'entitled' to sex simply because he exists, or that a date or a miserable, divorce prone marriage somehow entitles him to "sex" or so on and so forth, even if he invokes some mythos non-humorously about 'men', the reality is that in times past, he would've been quite a bit worse off than he was today.

In an 'ancient' era of male and female monarchs, it can be safely presumed that the king may simply have him, or other 'lower status' men into a eunuch and forced him to serve in the queens harem, rather than allowing or letting such more the inferior variety, whether one invokes evolutionary psychology, as per Pinker, the law, society, and civilization, or anything else, to simply exist and persist in his ugly and culturally hidieous delusion.

soon as a saw which moron posted this I didn't bother to read it.....

give me the short version: who do you want to kill today?

Idiots whose only joy in life is "criticizing" women as a whole.

 

[22lcidw]

Criticizing to warn is not demeaning. There are many avenues of demeaning another.

 

[MisterBeale]

I'm of the persuasion that criticizing or attacking "women" as a whole, is the antithesis to anything resembling a civilization or 1st world country, given that, whether one invokes biology, the evolution of the law and civilization, or anything else, women of different walks of life, of course do make and have made civilization; as an example, a woman of 'higher' status in an era past, whether one invokes Joan of Arc, Marie Curie, Margaret Thatcher, or anyone else, would have had higher overall 'status' and influence than a more 'ordinary' woman today typically does; regardless of what legal changes or element of purely 'arbitrary' discrimination not based on merits has been legally addressed; with fixed circumstances like family, birth, and so on and so forth having often tended to play a bigger role in the past, than at least theoretically today, in which more upward mobility and meritocraty is allegedly available, than in many times of the past.

Obviously were would be a huge difference in criticizing "a woman", or a specific subset, organization, or group of women in theory or practice, or specific actions thereof, whether one is talking about Sarah Palin, or Sarah Palin's "campaign team", or Hillary Clinton or otherwise.

But any childish notion which is predicated on attacking "women" as a whole, or predicated on contextually flawed myths, is ultimately a civilizational determent, and I see no further reason to allow such a juvenile thing to continue to persist.

As an example, take some freak who believe he was 'entitled' to sex simply because he exists, or that a date or a miserable, divorce prone marriage somehow entitles him to "sex" or so on and so forth, even if he invokes some mythos non-humorously about 'men', the reality is that in times past, he would've been quite a bit worse off than he was today.

In an 'ancient' era of male and female monarchs, it can be safely presumed that the king may simply have him, or other 'lower status' men into a eunuch and forced him to serve in the queens harem, rather than allowing or letting such more the inferior variety, whether one invokes evolutionary psychology, as per Pinker, the law, society, and civilization, or anything else, to simply exist and persist in his ugly and culturally hidieous delusion.

soon as a saw which moron posted this I didn't bother to read it.....

give me the short version: who do you want to kill today?

Idiots whose only joy in life is "criticizing" women as a whole.

Tell me, what does a virgin know about women?

 

[boedicca]

I'm of the persuasion that criticizing or attacking "women" as a whole, is the antithesis to anything resembling a civilization or 1st world country, given that, whether one invokes biology, the evolution of the law and civilization, or anything else, women of different walks of life, of course do make and have made civilization; as an example, a woman of 'higher' status in an era past, whether one invokes Joan of Arc, Marie Curie, Margaret Thatcher, or anyone else, would have had higher overall 'status' and influence than a more 'ordinary' woman today typically does; regardless of what legal changes or element of purely 'arbitrary' discrimination not based on merits has been legally addressed; with fixed circumstances like family, birth, and so on and so forth having often tended to play a bigger role in the past, than at least theoretically today, in which more upward mobility and meritocraty is allegedly available, than in many times of the past.

Obviously were would be a huge difference in criticizing "a woman", or a specific subset, organization, or group of women in theory or practice, or specific actions thereof, whether one is talking about Sarah Palin, or Sarah Palin's "campaign team", or Hillary Clinton or otherwise.

But any childish notion which is predicated on attacking "women" as a whole, or predicated on contextually flawed myths, is ultimately a civilizational determent, and I see no further reason to allow such a juvenile thing to continue to persist.

As an example, take some freak who believe he was 'entitled' to sex simply because he exists, or that a date or a miserable, divorce prone marriage somehow entitles him to "sex" or so on and so forth, even if he invokes some mythos non-humorously about 'men', the reality is that in times past, he would've been quite a bit worse off than he was today.

In an 'ancient' era of male and female monarchs, it can be safely presumed that the king may simply have him, or other 'lower status' men into a eunuch and forced him to serve in the queens harem, rather than allowing or letting such more the inferior variety, whether one invokes evolutionary psychology, as per Pinker, the law, society, and civilization, or anything else, to simply exist and persist in his ugly and culturally hidieous delusion.

Thank you, but I'd rather that we not give government the power to enforce ThoughtCrimes.

But I'm sure you can find support for your ideological bent in China.

 

[ReinyDays]

Idiots whose only joy in life is "criticizing" women as a whole.

Criticizing women as a whole is good clean fun ... have you heard the joke about the brunette, the redhead and the blonde? ... yeah, the one with puppies ... I guess it was funnier the first time I heard it ... meh ...

I've advanced into criticizing the entire species ... the hell with sexist or racist jokes ... cut into everybody ... the last dying nub on a rotting branch of the Tree of Life ... our cousin rats are better adjusted ...

 

[Yarddog]

I'm of the persuasion that criticizing or attacking "women" as a whole, is the antithesis to anything resembling a civilization or 1st world country, given that, whether one invokes biology, the evolution of the law and civilization, or anything else, women of different walks of life, of course do make and have made civilization; as an example, a woman of 'higher' status in an era past, whether one invokes Joan of Arc, Marie Curie, Margaret Thatcher, or anyone else, would have had higher overall 'status' and influence than a more 'ordinary' woman today typically does; regardless of what legal changes or element of purely 'arbitrary' discrimination not based on merits has been legally addressed; with fixed circumstances like family, birth, and so on and so forth having often tended to play a bigger role in the past, than at least theoretically today, in which more upward mobility and meritocraty is allegedly available, than in many times of the past.

Obviously were would be a huge difference in criticizing "a woman", or a specific subset, organization, or group of women in theory or practice, or specific actions thereof, whether one is talking about Sarah Palin, or Sarah Palin's "campaign team", or Hillary Clinton or otherwise.

But any childish notion which is predicated on attacking "women" as a whole, or predicated on contextually flawed myths, is ultimately a civilizational determent, and I see no further reason to allow such a juvenile thing to continue to persist.

As an example, take some freak who believe he was 'entitled' to sex simply because he exists, or that a date or a miserable, divorce prone marriage somehow entitles him to "sex" or so on and so forth, even if he invokes some mythos non-humorously about 'men', the reality is that in times past, he would've been quite a bit worse off than he was today.

In an 'ancient' era of male and female monarchs, it can be safely presumed that the king may simply have him, or other 'lower status' men into a eunuch and forced him to serve in the queens harem, rather than allowing or letting such more the inferior variety, whether one invokes evolutionary psychology, as per Pinker, the law, society, and civilization, or anything else, to simply exist and persist in his ugly and culturally hidieous delusion.

Should it be illegal to have crazy opinions? Who is the thought police going to be here? exactly what constitutes criticism? Something may not be right or correct, but you cant turn every little thing into a crime. People need to be a little bit stronger, a little thicker skinned or where is this going to stop?

 

[CWayne]

I'm of the persuasion that criticizing or attacking "women" as a whole, is the antithesis to anything resembling a civilization or 1st world country, given that, whether one invokes biology, the evolution of the law and civilization, or anything else, women of different walks of life, of course do make and have made civilization; as an example, a woman of 'higher' status in an era past, whether one invokes Joan of Arc, Marie Curie, Margaret Thatcher, or anyone else, would have had higher overall 'status' and influence than a more 'ordinary' woman today typically does; regardless of what legal changes or element of purely 'arbitrary' discrimination not based on merits has been legally addressed; with fixed circumstances like family, birth, and so on and so forth having often tended to play a bigger role in the past, than at least theoretically today, in which more upward mobility and meritocraty is allegedly available, than in many times of the past.

Obviously were would be a huge difference in criticizing "a woman", or a specific subset, organization, or group of women in theory or practice, or specific actions thereof, whether one is talking about Sarah Palin, or Sarah Palin's "campaign team", or Hillary Clinton or otherwise.

But any childish notion which is predicated on attacking "women" as a whole, or predicated on contextually flawed myths, is ultimately a civilizational determent, and I see no further reason to allow such a juvenile thing to continue to persist.

As an example, take some freak who believe he was 'entitled' to sex simply because he exists, or that a date or a miserable, divorce prone marriage somehow entitles him to "sex" or so on and so forth, even if he invokes some mythos non-humorously about 'men', the reality is that in times past, he would've been quite a bit worse off than he was today.

In an 'ancient' era of male and female monarchs, it can be safely presumed that the king may simply have him, or other 'lower status' men into a eunuch and forced him to serve in the queens harem, rather than allowing or letting such more the inferior variety, whether one invokes evolutionary psychology, as per Pinker, the law, society, and civilization, or anything else, to simply exist and persist in his ugly and culturally hidieous delusion.

The outlawing of speech in any era cannot be considered 'civilized' by anyone.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I'm of the persuasion that criticizing or attacking "women" as a whole, is the antithesis to anything resembling a civilization or 1st world country, given that, whether one invokes biology, the evolution of the law and civilization, or anything else, women of different walks of life, of course do make and have made civilization; as an example, a woman of 'higher' status in an era past, whether one invokes Joan of Arc, Marie Curie, Margaret Thatcher, or anyone else, would have had higher overall 'status' and influence than a more 'ordinary' woman today typically does; regardless of what legal changes or element of purely 'arbitrary' discrimination not based on merits has been legally addressed; with fixed circumstances like family, birth, and so on and so forth having often tended to play a bigger role in the past, than at least theoretically today, in which more upward mobility and meritocraty is allegedly available, than in many times of the past.

Obviously were would be a huge difference in criticizing "a woman", or a specific subset, organization, or group of women in theory or practice, or specific actions thereof, whether one is talking about Sarah Palin, or Sarah Palin's "campaign team", or Hillary Clinton or otherwise.

But any childish notion which is predicated on attacking "women" as a whole, or predicated on contextually flawed myths, is ultimately a civilizational determent, and I see no further reason to allow such a juvenile thing to continue to persist.

As an example, take some freak who believe he was 'entitled' to sex simply because he exists, or that a date or a miserable, divorce prone marriage somehow entitles him to "sex" or so on and so forth, even if he invokes some mythos non-humorously about 'men', the reality is that in times past, he would've been quite a bit worse off than he was today.

In an 'ancient' era of male and female monarchs, it can be safely presumed that the king may simply have him, or other 'lower status' men into a eunuch and forced him to serve in the queens harem, rather than allowing or letting such more the inferior variety, whether one invokes evolutionary psychology, as per Pinker, the law, society, and civilization, or anything else, to simply exist and persist in his ugly and culturally hidieous delusion.

Women are as equally dumb as men.

 

[skye]

I can't believe the title of this thread is meant to be taken seriously...

this must be a strange joke, right??

wow....just wow

 

[MisterBeale]

I can't believe the title of this thread is meant to be taken seriously...

this must be a strange joke, right??

wow....just wow

You should read some of this guys other threads.

OTH, I am of the opinion, he might be a high functioning autistic fellow. .. . so, if that were to be true, we might probably give him a little slack. I don't really know. I always found Abishai100's posts a little on the odd side as well. . . so, you never know.


They tend not to reply, only start their own threads. They all have only a capacity to live in their own world. Always end as soon as they start.

Mindwars is another one.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I'm of the persuasion that criticizing or attacking "women" as a whole, is the antithesis to anything resembling a civilization or 1st world country, given that, whether one invokes biology, the evolution of the law and civilization, or anything else, women of different walks of life, of course do make and have made civilization; as an example, a woman of 'higher' status in an era past, whether one invokes Joan of Arc, Marie Curie, Margaret Thatcher, or anyone else, would have had higher overall 'status' and influence than a more 'ordinary' woman today typically does; regardless of what legal changes or element of purely 'arbitrary' discrimination not based on merits has been legally addressed; with fixed circumstances like family, birth, and so on and so forth having often tended to play a bigger role in the past, than at least theoretically today, in which more upward mobility and meritocraty is allegedly available, than in many times of the past.

Obviously were would be a huge difference in criticizing "a woman", or a specific subset, organization, or group of women in theory or practice, or specific actions thereof, whether one is talking about Sarah Palin, or Sarah Palin's "campaign team", or Hillary Clinton or otherwise.

But any childish notion which is predicated on attacking "women" as a whole, or predicated on contextually flawed myths, is ultimately a civilizational determent, and I see no further reason to allow such a juvenile thing to continue to persist.

As an example, take some freak who believe he was 'entitled' to sex simply because he exists, or that a date or a miserable, divorce prone marriage somehow entitles him to "sex" or so on and so forth, even if he invokes some mythos non-humorously about 'men', the reality is that in times past, he would've been quite a bit worse off than he was today.

In an 'ancient' era of male and female monarchs, it can be safely presumed that the king may simply have him, or other 'lower status' men into a eunuch and forced him to serve in the queens harem, rather than allowing or letting such more the inferior variety, whether one invokes evolutionary psychology, as per Pinker, the law, society, and civilization, or anything else, to simply exist and persist in his ugly and culturally hidieous delusion.

Women are as equally dumb as men.

I mean they generally differ in their stupidity but we both have our weak points.
I can build anything and the Wife is a genius when it comes to managing money.
I hate to admit it but her skill is more valuable than mine.
She'll disagree but it's only to make me feel better.....but I'm good with that.

 

[ReinyDays]

this must be a strange joke, right??

The husband sneaks up on his wife while she's cooking dinner ... in her startlement, she turns and stabs him in the heart killing him ...

Aiel humor ... I don't get it either ...

 

[Questioner]

I'm of the persuasion that criticizing or attacking "women" as a whole, is the antithesis to anything resembling a civilization or 1st world country, given that, whether one invokes biology, the evolution of the law and civilization, or anything else, women of different walks of life, of course do make and have made civilization; as an example, a woman of 'higher' status in an era past, whether one invokes Joan of Arc, Marie Curie, Margaret Thatcher, or anyone else, would have had higher overall 'status' and influence than a more 'ordinary' woman today typically does; regardless of what legal changes or element of purely 'arbitrary' discrimination not based on merits has been legally addressed; with fixed circumstances like family, birth, and so on and so forth having often tended to play a bigger role in the past, than at least theoretically today, in which more upward mobility and meritocraty is allegedly available, than in many times of the past.

Obviously were would be a huge difference in criticizing "a woman", or a specific subset, organization, or group of women in theory or practice, or specific actions thereof, whether one is talking about Sarah Palin, or Sarah Palin's "campaign team", or Hillary Clinton or otherwise.

But any childish notion which is predicated on attacking "women" as a whole, or predicated on contextually flawed myths, is ultimately a civilizational determent, and I see no further reason to allow such a juvenile thing to continue to persist.

As an example, take some freak who believe he was 'entitled' to sex simply because he exists, or that a date or a miserable, divorce prone marriage somehow entitles him to "sex" or so on and so forth, even if he invokes some mythos non-humorously about 'men', the reality is that in times past, he would've been quite a bit worse off than he was today.

In an 'ancient' era of male and female monarchs, it can be safely presumed that the king may simply have him, or other 'lower status' men into a eunuch and forced him to serve in the queens harem, rather than allowing or letting such more the inferior variety, whether one invokes evolutionary psychology, as per Pinker, the law, society, and civilization, or anything else, to simply exist and persist in his ugly and culturally hidieous delusion.

soon as a saw which moron posted this I didn't bother to read it.....

give me the short version: who do you want to kill today?

Idiots whose only joy in life is "criticizing" women as a whole.

Tell me, what does a virgin know about women?

You tell me, I've dated somewhere between 15-20 women, but don't find it a satisfying life pursuit whether one references Buddha or any other thinker, hedonism only temporarily satisfies, akin to any "drug" of choice.