Women want to be treated equally.....

[anotherlife]

Society has not fallen far enough to justify executing people for being in the wrong place or for not having an alibi.

I am sure all your neighbors are scared. The rest of us, not so much.

Society has fallen far enough to justify far morethan just the execution of convicts; but that's a topic for another place and time.

My neighbors actually enjoy having me around most of the time. I'm the only guy in the eight condos in my building. I'm handy to have around most of the time and generally limit my outbursts of rage to short bursts of screaming and breaking stuff.

Shame on you, breaking stuff. I got thrown out for this once, even that her wine bottle was already empty when I broke it.

 

[Conservative65]

No, you claimed you heard what the jury heard. You obviously did not hear what the jury heard, if you were not there every day.

As for Susan Smith's mental state being an excuse, I am happy you have the necessary training to make that determination. Oh wait, you don't. But perhaps the expert testimony and the two suicide attempts prior to her getting married and having children might be a clue?

As for my arrogance, at least I am not claiming to have heard what the jury heard, despite not being there every day. And I am not claiming to know Susan Smith's mental state, as you have done.

You've slithered all over the place, and yet you can't tell me why a death row prisoner was able to kill a prison guard, or why you were amused by it.
That is seriously sick stuff. The condemned should be spared for the chance to kill again?!

I read his response to your question and it was full of excuses that blamed anyone except the ones that did the killing.

Please show me one excuse I made for anyone killing anyone? I did bring up Susan Smith's mental health as a likely reason that the jury didn't give her the death penalty. But that is not making an excuse for anyone.

Please show me where I made any excuses for someone killing someone.

You made excuses, specifically mental issues, as to why she shouldn't have been executed. When you say she did this, but . . (fill in the blank), it's called an excuse.

Did I say that? Or did I say that the judge and jury heard testimony about her mental illness, and that is likely the reason she was not executed?

You can't say anything about why she was not executed. You didn't hear a single bit of testimony and yet you claim that.

 

[WinterBorn]

You've slithered all over the place, and yet you can't tell me why a death row prisoner was able to kill a prison guard, or why you were amused by it.
That is seriously sick stuff. The condemned should be spared for the chance to kill again?!

I read his response to your question and it was full of excuses that blamed anyone except the ones that did the killing.

Please show me one excuse I made for anyone killing anyone? I did bring up Susan Smith's mental health as a likely reason that the jury didn't give her the death penalty. But that is not making an excuse for anyone.

Please show me where I made any excuses for someone killing someone.

You made excuses, specifically mental issues, as to why she shouldn't have been executed. When you say she did this, but . . (fill in the blank), it's called an excuse.

Did I say that? Or did I say that the judge and jury heard testimony about her mental illness, and that is likely the reason she was not executed?

You can't say anything about why she was not executed. You didn't hear a single bit of testimony and yet you claim that.

The fact that her mental illness was an issue is part of public records and reported by the news media. In other words, common knowledge.

At least I didn't lie about what I heard,

 

[ChrisL]

You've slithered all over the place, and yet you can't tell me why a death row prisoner was able to kill a prison guard, or why you were amused by it.
That is seriously sick stuff. The condemned should be spared for the chance to kill again?!

I read his response to your question and it was full of excuses that blamed anyone except the ones that did the killing.

Please show me one excuse I made for anyone killing anyone? I did bring up Susan Smith's mental health as a likely reason that the jury didn't give her the death penalty. But that is not making an excuse for anyone.

Please show me where I made any excuses for someone killing someone.

You made excuses, specifically mental issues, as to why she shouldn't have been executed. When you say she did this, but . . (fill in the blank), it's called an excuse.

Did I say that? Or did I say that the judge and jury heard testimony about her mental illness, and that is likely the reason she was not executed?

You can't say anything about why she was not executed. You didn't hear a single bit of testimony and yet you claim that.

Do you think a woman who could do that to her children is sane? Susan Smith had a history of child sexual abuse by her stepfather. If you had been in the courtroom, you would know that he read an apology letter to Susan, apologizing for molesting her when she was a teenager and messing her all up.

Defending Smith, Stepfather Says He Also Bears Blame

Snip:

UNION, S.C., July 27— Susan Smith's stepfather, who admitted that he had molested her when she was a teen-ager and had consensual sex with her as an adult, told her and his town that he shared her guilt in the drowning deaths of her young sons.

Mrs. Smith's defense, which rested its case today in the penalty phase of her murder trial, did what many people in this small town have wondered about for months: it called to the stand her stepfather, Beverly Russell, to accept part of the blame for the deaths of the two little boys last Oct. 25.

Mr. Russell, a former member of the executive committee of the South Carolina Republican Party and a member of the Christian Coalition, read aloud from a letter he had written to Mrs. Smith in jail in which he said that his "heart breaks for what I have done to you."

"You don't have all the guilt in this tragedy," he wrote to her, on Father's Day.

Closing arguments in the sentencing phase of the trial were expected to begin on Friday morning, and the jury was expected to get the case by the afternoon.

The same jury took just 2 1/2 hours to convict the 23-year-old Mrs. Smith of murder in the drowning of Michael, 3, and Alex, 14 months. They must now deliberate whether Mrs. Smith should be executed for that offense or be sentenced to life in prison, where she would be eligible for parole after 30 years.

Mr. Russell was one of several relatives who testified for Mrs. Smith today. Mrs. Smith refused to testify when Judge William Howard of Circuit Court told her she had the right. But the jury could still hear from her on Friday if she chooses to make an unsworn statement to it after the lawyers have finished closing arguments. No cross-examination is permitted.

The state's psychiatrist said before the trial even began that Mrs. Smith wanted to die and would sabotage her own defense if she was allowed to speak to the jury.

Mrs. Smith's lawyer, David Bruck, who has argued that she just snapped under the pressure of a crumbling personal life and a long history of depression, was paid in part by Mr. Russell, who mortgaged his home to raise the money.

Mr. Russell, a tall, bulky man with silver hair, cried on the stand as he read from his letter, "Had I known what the result of my sin would be, I would have mustered the strength to behave according to my responsibility."

Mr. Russell fondled his daughter when she was 15 and kissed her in a passionate, grown-up way. He continued to do so even after he had had counseling, he testified today. Then, after her marriage to David Smith, the boys' father, he had sex with her again.

Mr. Bruck and Judy Clarke, another of Mrs. Smith's lawyers, have called witness after witness who testified that sexual molestation at the hands of a parent could lead to a lifetime of emotional damage.

 

[anotherlife]

I read his response to your question and it was full of excuses that blamed anyone except the ones that did the killing.

Please show me one excuse I made for anyone killing anyone? I did bring up Susan Smith's mental health as a likely reason that the jury didn't give her the death penalty. But that is not making an excuse for anyone.

Please show me where I made any excuses for someone killing someone.

You made excuses, specifically mental issues, as to why she shouldn't have been executed. When you say she did this, but . . (fill in the blank), it's called an excuse.

Did I say that? Or did I say that the judge and jury heard testimony about her mental illness, and that is likely the reason she was not executed?

You can't say anything about why she was not executed. You didn't hear a single bit of testimony and yet you claim that.

Do you think a woman who could do that to her children is sane? Susan Smith had a history of child sexual abuse by her stepfather. If you had been in the courtroom, you would know that he read an apology letter to Susan, apologizing for molesting her when she was a teenager and messing her all up.

Defending Smith, Stepfather Says He Also Bears Blame

Snip:

UNION, S.C., July 27— Susan Smith's stepfather, who admitted that he had molested her when she was a teen-ager and had consensual sex with her as an adult, told her and his town that he shared her guilt in the drowning deaths of her young sons.

Mrs. Smith's defense, which rested its case today in the penalty phase of her murder trial, did what many people in this small town have wondered about for months: it called to the stand her stepfather, Beverly Russell, to accept part of the blame for the deaths of the two little boys last Oct. 25.

Mr. Russell, a former member of the executive committee of the South Carolina Republican Party and a member of the Christian Coalition, read aloud from a letter he had written to Mrs. Smith in jail in which he said that his "heart breaks for what I have done to you."

"You don't have all the guilt in this tragedy," he wrote to her, on Father's Day.

Closing arguments in the sentencing phase of the trial were expected to begin on Friday morning, and the jury was expected to get the case by the afternoon.

The same jury took just 2 1/2 hours to convict the 23-year-old Mrs. Smith of murder in the drowning of Michael, 3, and Alex, 14 months. They must now deliberate whether Mrs. Smith should be executed for that offense or be sentenced to life in prison, where she would be eligible for parole after 30 years.

Mr. Russell was one of several relatives who testified for Mrs. Smith today. Mrs. Smith refused to testify when Judge William Howard of Circuit Court told her she had the right. But the jury could still hear from her on Friday if she chooses to make an unsworn statement to it after the lawyers have finished closing arguments. No cross-examination is permitted.

The state's psychiatrist said before the trial even began that Mrs. Smith wanted to die and would sabotage her own defense if she was allowed to speak to the jury.

Mrs. Smith's lawyer, David Bruck, who has argued that she just snapped under the pressure of a crumbling personal life and a long history of depression, was paid in part by Mr. Russell, who mortgaged his home to raise the money.

Mr. Russell, a tall, bulky man with silver hair, cried on the stand as he read from his letter, "Had I known what the result of my sin would be, I would have mustered the strength to behave according to my responsibility."

Mr. Russell fondled his daughter when she was 15 and kissed her in a passionate, grown-up way. He continued to do so even after he had had counseling, he testified today. Then, after her marriage to David Smith, the boys' father, he had sex with her again.

Mr. Bruck and Judy Clarke, another of Mrs. Smith's lawyers, have called witness after witness who testified that sexual molestation at the hands of a parent could lead to a lifetime of emotional damage.

There is no cure or rehab for pedophilia, so pedophiles should be executed in fast trials or shot on sight. That would clean up a lot of things. However, worldwide statistics show time to time, that as much as 90% of girls in the world would have a legitimate claim of molestation. So, is emotional disturbance a good enough argument in front of a court or even just in front of public opinion?

 

[ChrisL]

Please show me one excuse I made for anyone killing anyone? I did bring up Susan Smith's mental health as a likely reason that the jury didn't give her the death penalty. But that is not making an excuse for anyone.

Please show me where I made any excuses for someone killing someone.

You made excuses, specifically mental issues, as to why she shouldn't have been executed. When you say she did this, but . . (fill in the blank), it's called an excuse.

Did I say that? Or did I say that the judge and jury heard testimony about her mental illness, and that is likely the reason she was not executed?

You can't say anything about why she was not executed. You didn't hear a single bit of testimony and yet you claim that.

Do you think a woman who could do that to her children is sane? Susan Smith had a history of child sexual abuse by her stepfather. If you had been in the courtroom, you would know that he read an apology letter to Susan, apologizing for molesting her when she was a teenager and messing her all up.

Defending Smith, Stepfather Says He Also Bears Blame

Snip:

UNION, S.C., July 27— Susan Smith's stepfather, who admitted that he had molested her when she was a teen-ager and had consensual sex with her as an adult, told her and his town that he shared her guilt in the drowning deaths of her young sons.

Mrs. Smith's defense, which rested its case today in the penalty phase of her murder trial, did what many people in this small town have wondered about for months: it called to the stand her stepfather, Beverly Russell, to accept part of the blame for the deaths of the two little boys last Oct. 25.

Mr. Russell, a former member of the executive committee of the South Carolina Republican Party and a member of the Christian Coalition, read aloud from a letter he had written to Mrs. Smith in jail in which he said that his "heart breaks for what I have done to you."

"You don't have all the guilt in this tragedy," he wrote to her, on Father's Day.

Closing arguments in the sentencing phase of the trial were expected to begin on Friday morning, and the jury was expected to get the case by the afternoon.

The same jury took just 2 1/2 hours to convict the 23-year-old Mrs. Smith of murder in the drowning of Michael, 3, and Alex, 14 months. They must now deliberate whether Mrs. Smith should be executed for that offense or be sentenced to life in prison, where she would be eligible for parole after 30 years.

Mr. Russell was one of several relatives who testified for Mrs. Smith today. Mrs. Smith refused to testify when Judge William Howard of Circuit Court told her she had the right. But the jury could still hear from her on Friday if she chooses to make an unsworn statement to it after the lawyers have finished closing arguments. No cross-examination is permitted.

The state's psychiatrist said before the trial even began that Mrs. Smith wanted to die and would sabotage her own defense if she was allowed to speak to the jury.

Mrs. Smith's lawyer, David Bruck, who has argued that she just snapped under the pressure of a crumbling personal life and a long history of depression, was paid in part by Mr. Russell, who mortgaged his home to raise the money.

Mr. Russell, a tall, bulky man with silver hair, cried on the stand as he read from his letter, "Had I known what the result of my sin would be, I would have mustered the strength to behave according to my responsibility."

Mr. Russell fondled his daughter when she was 15 and kissed her in a passionate, grown-up way. He continued to do so even after he had had counseling, he testified today. Then, after her marriage to David Smith, the boys' father, he had sex with her again.

Mr. Bruck and Judy Clarke, another of Mrs. Smith's lawyers, have called witness after witness who testified that sexual molestation at the hands of a parent could lead to a lifetime of emotional damage.

There is no cure or rehab for pedophilia, so pedophiles should be executed in fast trials or shot on sight. That would clean up a lot of things. However, worldwide statistics show time to time, that as much as 90% of girls in the world would have a legitimate claim of molestation. So, is emotional disturbance a good enough argument in front of a court or even just in front of public opinion?

That all depends on the type of abuse, who the abuser is, how long the abuse has gone on, if the child has gotten counseling and support, etc.

 

[Anathema]

Shame on you, breaking stuff. I got thrown out for this once, even that her wine bottle was already empty when I broke it.

Breaking stuff is generally preferred to either breaking myself or aomeone else. We lost another glass this afternoon courtesy of the Washington Redskins. There's probably enough tiny glass shards on the floor of our condo to fill our cabinets with new glassware. Speaking of which, I need to stop at Kmart and pick up some new glassware tomorrow evening.

The condo us,in my name so getting thrown out isn't my concern.

 

[WinterBorn]

Shame on you, breaking stuff. I got thrown out for this once, even that her wine bottle was already empty when I broke it.

Breaking stuff is generally preferred to either breaking myself or aomeone else. We lost another glass this afternoon courtesy of the Washington Redskins. There's probably enough tiny glass shards on the floor of our condo to fill our cabinets with new glassware. Speaking of which, I need to stop at Kmart and pick up some new glassware tomorrow evening.

The condo us,in my name so getting thrown out isn't my concern.

I find it amusing that you talk shit about the "moral decay" of our society. Your view is that people lack the discipline to control their urges. And yet you cannot even control your violent nature when you watch a game on tv. So much hypocrisy.

 

[Anathema]

I find it amusing that you talk shit about the "moral decay" of our society. Your view is that people lack the discipline to control their urges. And yet you cannot even control your violent nature when you watch a game on tv. So much hypocrisy.

My view is that most people cannot act in a Moral manner. There is nothing immoral about reacting violently when people or groups you have invested in fail to live up to their potential due to incompetence.

 

[WinterBorn]

I find it amusing that you talk shit about the "moral decay" of our society. Your view is that people lack the discipline to control their urges. And yet you cannot even control your violent nature when you watch a game on tv. So much hypocrisy.

My view is that most people cannot act in a Moral manner. There is nothing immoral about reacting violently when people or groups you have invested in fail to live up to their potential due to incompetence.

And no one around you has ever been scared because of your violent outbursts?

What have you "invested" in the NFL game? And make no mistake, it is a game.

And most people live as they choose. The fact that they do not follow your warped standards does not make them immoral. You see women as inferior. That alone denies you the moral high ground.

 

[anotherlife]

That's a bit cowardly, especially since you said the death penalty wasn't a deterrent. You brought that up, and now you want to stick to the topic.

Prison guards should not die because you are self-righteous or a coward.

The death penalty does not deter anyone from committing a murder, in the normal use of this term as it relates to criminal punishment.

And yes, I was part of the derailment of the thread. Now I am trying to get back to the original topic. If you want to call this "cowardly", I would simply laugh at your definition of bravery.

Definately cowardice, and no one should die because you are a coward. A dead person cannot kill. It really is that simple and trying to obfuscate that fact with some gobbledygook which is abjectly absurd as in, "The death penalty does not deter anyone from committing a murder.in the normal use of this term as it relates to criminal punishment."

People with far more courage than you or I protect society from low life scumbags. and while we do not have the courage or inclination to do so ourselves, I am not a hypocrite. At least I value then lives of those more than I do your self-righteousness, and frankly stupidity in arguing the point.

Oh please. Spare me your attempts at the moral high ground.

When discussing whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent, the usual meaning is whether or not it deters others from committing murders. Of course, one the execution takes place the person will not commit any more murders.

But the average length of time an inmate spend on death row is just over 15 years. That is ample time for more murders, and the sentence is obviously not going to deter them.

Death Row Inmates, 1953-2013 - Death Penalty - ProCon.org

That web site's info shows that just under 25% of the inmates placed on death row between 1973 and 2013 were actually executed.

But 58.2% had their sentence or conviction overturned. So in twice as many case there was enough doubt or extenuating circumstances to remove them from death row.

You are adding insult to injury to yourself, oddly enough. Why are these assholes living for decades after they've been convicted since 1953?

One of the main reason was that SCOTUS halted executions for a decade as many of these bastards died of natural causes, and state like California, with about 700 on death row haven't executed anyone in ages. ***** whipped states with ***** whipped courts allowed them to live and gave them the opportunity to kill more people like Thomas Knight:

Thomas Knight #1360

You are a coward and people should not die because of it.

Life in prison is a much worse punishment than death! Once your dead, you're dead! That's it!

Interesting. A human is talking about punishment. They should know. Even that you are right, are you saying this to make yourself appear in a less than evil light, don't you?

 

[ChrisL]

The death penalty does not deter anyone from committing a murder, in the normal use of this term as it relates to criminal punishment.

And yes, I was part of the derailment of the thread. Now I am trying to get back to the original topic. If you want to call this "cowardly", I would simply laugh at your definition of bravery.

Definately cowardice, and no one should die because you are a coward. A dead person cannot kill. It really is that simple and trying to obfuscate that fact with some gobbledygook which is abjectly absurd as in, "The death penalty does not deter anyone from committing a murder.in the normal use of this term as it relates to criminal punishment."

People with far more courage than you or I protect society from low life scumbags. and while we do not have the courage or inclination to do so ourselves, I am not a hypocrite. At least I value then lives of those more than I do your self-righteousness, and frankly stupidity in arguing the point.

Oh please. Spare me your attempts at the moral high ground.

When discussing whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent, the usual meaning is whether or not it deters others from committing murders. Of course, one the execution takes place the person will not commit any more murders.

But the average length of time an inmate spend on death row is just over 15 years. That is ample time for more murders, and the sentence is obviously not going to deter them.

Death Row Inmates, 1953-2013 - Death Penalty - ProCon.org

That web site's info shows that just under 25% of the inmates placed on death row between 1973 and 2013 were actually executed.

But 58.2% had their sentence or conviction overturned. So in twice as many case there was enough doubt or extenuating circumstances to remove them from death row.

You are adding insult to injury to yourself, oddly enough. Why are these assholes living for decades after they've been convicted since 1953?

One of the main reason was that SCOTUS halted executions for a decade as many of these bastards died of natural causes, and state like California, with about 700 on death row haven't executed anyone in ages. ***** whipped states with ***** whipped courts allowed them to live and gave them the opportunity to kill more people like Thomas Knight:

Thomas Knight #1360

You are a coward and people should not die because of it.

Life in prison is a much worse punishment than death! Once your dead, you're dead! That's it!

Interesting. A human is talking about punishment. They should know. Even that you are right, are you saying this to make yourself appear in a less than evil light, don't you?

What? This doesn't even make any sense!

 

[ChrisL]

The death penalty does not deter anyone from committing a murder, in the normal use of this term as it relates to criminal punishment.

And yes, I was part of the derailment of the thread. Now I am trying to get back to the original topic. If you want to call this "cowardly", I would simply laugh at your definition of bravery.

Definately cowardice, and no one should die because you are a coward. A dead person cannot kill. It really is that simple and trying to obfuscate that fact with some gobbledygook which is abjectly absurd as in, "The death penalty does not deter anyone from committing a murder.in the normal use of this term as it relates to criminal punishment."

People with far more courage than you or I protect society from low life scumbags. and while we do not have the courage or inclination to do so ourselves, I am not a hypocrite. At least I value then lives of those more than I do your self-righteousness, and frankly stupidity in arguing the point.

Oh please. Spare me your attempts at the moral high ground.

When discussing whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent, the usual meaning is whether or not it deters others from committing murders. Of course, one the execution takes place the person will not commit any more murders.

But the average length of time an inmate spend on death row is just over 15 years. That is ample time for more murders, and the sentence is obviously not going to deter them.

Death Row Inmates, 1953-2013 - Death Penalty - ProCon.org

That web site's info shows that just under 25% of the inmates placed on death row between 1973 and 2013 were actually executed.

But 58.2% had their sentence or conviction overturned. So in twice as many case there was enough doubt or extenuating circumstances to remove them from death row.

You are adding insult to injury to yourself, oddly enough. Why are these assholes living for decades after they've been convicted since 1953?

One of the main reason was that SCOTUS halted executions for a decade as many of these bastards died of natural causes, and state like California, with about 700 on death row haven't executed anyone in ages. ***** whipped states with ***** whipped courts allowed them to live and gave them the opportunity to kill more people like Thomas Knight:

Thomas Knight #1360

You are a coward and people should not die because of it.

Life in prison is a much worse punishment than death! Once your dead, you're dead! That's it!

Interesting. A human is talking about punishment. They should know. Even that you are right, are you saying this to make yourself appear in a less than evil light, don't you?

Good grief, go back to elementary school, will ya?

 

[danielpalos]

so, you believe bearing True Witness and not letting us miss our turn is demented and sick?

What about politics: Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.--Otto von Bismarck

Oh, and you don't get a "turn". You get whatever a woman chooses to share with you. And she gets the same.

it is about honesty and equality, dear.

Indeed it is. It is about you being honest that you want women to offer themselves up for being used. And that has nothing to do with equality.

And it is not about you getting your "turn".

still nothing but fallacy? "informed consent" is always better than lies; only Bad boys do that.

Fallacy? Where is the fallacy in not requiring women to offer themselves to be used? I am being quite logical about it. There is no logical reason for women to be denied equality. You want them to pay for that equality by being used. I have never had to offer myself up to be used in order to be equal. Your argument is the fallacy (or fantasy). And you are the one who keeps demanding "your turn".

yes, if it required of men. are men not usually required to "chase" women and "romance" them or "wine and dine" them to get them to put-out?

Where are the nice girls who only want sex.

 

[danielpalos]

so, you believe bearing True Witness and not letting us miss our turn is demented and sick?

What about politics: Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.--Otto von Bismarck

Oh, and you don't get a "turn". You get whatever a woman chooses to share with you. And she gets the same.

it is about honesty and equality, dear.

Indeed it is. It is about you being honest that you want women to offer themselves up for being used. And that has nothing to do with equality.

And it is not about you getting your "turn".

still nothing but fallacy? "informed consent" is always better than lies; only Bad boys do that.

To put it bluntly, women aren't interested in you because you are a ******* weirdo.

nope; that isn't it. but, guys usually only want women because they are using their sex on us. no sex, no want. not weird; only the clueless and the Causeless think that way.

 

[WinterBorn]

Oh, and you don't get a "turn". You get whatever a woman chooses to share with you. And she gets the same.

it is about honesty and equality, dear.

Indeed it is. It is about you being honest that you want women to offer themselves up for being used. And that has nothing to do with equality.

And it is not about you getting your "turn".

still nothing but fallacy? "informed consent" is always better than lies; only Bad boys do that.

Fallacy? Where is the fallacy in not requiring women to offer themselves to be used? I am being quite logical about it. There is no logical reason for women to be denied equality. You want them to pay for that equality by being used. I have never had to offer myself up to be used in order to be equal. Your argument is the fallacy (or fantasy). And you are the one who keeps demanding "your turn".

yes, if it required of men. are men not usually required to "chase" women and "romance" them or "wine and dine" them to get them to put-out?

Where are the nice girls who only want sex.

You have it wrong. You are arguing that women should ask to be used in order to prove they actually want equality. That is blatantly stupid.

Yes, men usually chase women. But it is not always the case. I have been pursued on more than one occasion.

But men are generally wired to look for sex. Women are generally wired to look for a mate.

 

[danielpalos]

it is about honesty and equality, dear.

Indeed it is. It is about you being honest that you want women to offer themselves up for being used. And that has nothing to do with equality.

And it is not about you getting your "turn".

still nothing but fallacy? "informed consent" is always better than lies; only Bad boys do that.

Fallacy? Where is the fallacy in not requiring women to offer themselves to be used? I am being quite logical about it. There is no logical reason for women to be denied equality. You want them to pay for that equality by being used. I have never had to offer myself up to be used in order to be equal. Your argument is the fallacy (or fantasy). And you are the one who keeps demanding "your turn".

yes, if it required of men. are men not usually required to "chase" women and "romance" them or "wine and dine" them to get them to put-out?

Where are the nice girls who only want sex.

You have it wrong. You are arguing that women should ask to be used in order to prove they actually want equality. That is blatantly stupid.

Yes, men usually chase women. But it is not always the case. I have been pursued on more than one occasion.

But men are generally wired to look for sex. Women are generally wired to look for a mate.

why is honest communication, blatantly stupid, according to you.

i see you read of the same inaccurate gender studies i did.

how many nice guys don't make a good mate?

 

[WinterBorn]

Indeed it is. It is about you being honest that you want women to offer themselves up for being used. And that has nothing to do with equality.

And it is not about you getting your "turn".

still nothing but fallacy? "informed consent" is always better than lies; only Bad boys do that.

Fallacy? Where is the fallacy in not requiring women to offer themselves to be used? I am being quite logical about it. There is no logical reason for women to be denied equality. You want them to pay for that equality by being used. I have never had to offer myself up to be used in order to be equal. Your argument is the fallacy (or fantasy). And you are the one who keeps demanding "your turn".

yes, if it required of men. are men not usually required to "chase" women and "romance" them or "wine and dine" them to get them to put-out?

Where are the nice girls who only want sex.

You have it wrong. You are arguing that women should ask to be used in order to prove they actually want equality. That is blatantly stupid.

Yes, men usually chase women. But it is not always the case. I have been pursued on more than one occasion.

But men are generally wired to look for sex. Women are generally wired to look for a mate.

why is honest communication, blatantly stupid, according to you.

i see you read of the same inaccurate gender studies i did.

how many nice guys don't make a good mate?

Honest communication? How is wanting women to submit to your sexual whims as a condition of being taken seriously about equality an issue of "honest communication"?

I don't know how many nice guys don't make a good mate. How many guys seem to be "nice" and turn out to be self-serving assholes?

 

[danielpalos]

still nothing but fallacy? "informed consent" is always better than lies; only Bad boys do that.

Fallacy? Where is the fallacy in not requiring women to offer themselves to be used? I am being quite logical about it. There is no logical reason for women to be denied equality. You want them to pay for that equality by being used. I have never had to offer myself up to be used in order to be equal. Your argument is the fallacy (or fantasy). And you are the one who keeps demanding "your turn".

yes, if it required of men. are men not usually required to "chase" women and "romance" them or "wine and dine" them to get them to put-out?

Where are the nice girls who only want sex.

You have it wrong. You are arguing that women should ask to be used in order to prove they actually want equality. That is blatantly stupid.

Yes, men usually chase women. But it is not always the case. I have been pursued on more than one occasion.

But men are generally wired to look for sex. Women are generally wired to look for a mate.

why is honest communication, blatantly stupid, according to you.

i see you read of the same inaccurate gender studies i did.

how many nice guys don't make a good mate?

Honest communication? How is wanting women to submit to your sexual whims as a condition of being taken seriously about equality an issue of "honest communication"?

I don't know how many nice guys don't make a good mate. How many guys seem to be "nice" and turn out to be self-serving assholes?

they do it for bad boys who are not good mate material; how do you account for that?

and, which gender cannot handle honesty and insists bad boys have to lie for sex just to prove their infidel-ism, protestant-ism, and renegade-ism, to a god.

 

[WinterBorn]

Fallacy? Where is the fallacy in not requiring women to offer themselves to be used? I am being quite logical about it. There is no logical reason for women to be denied equality. You want them to pay for that equality by being used. I have never had to offer myself up to be used in order to be equal. Your argument is the fallacy (or fantasy). And you are the one who keeps demanding "your turn".

yes, if it required of men. are men not usually required to "chase" women and "romance" them or "wine and dine" them to get them to put-out?

Where are the nice girls who only want sex.

You have it wrong. You are arguing that women should ask to be used in order to prove they actually want equality. That is blatantly stupid.

Yes, men usually chase women. But it is not always the case. I have been pursued on more than one occasion.

But men are generally wired to look for sex. Women are generally wired to look for a mate.

why is honest communication, blatantly stupid, according to you.

i see you read of the same inaccurate gender studies i did.

how many nice guys don't make a good mate?

Honest communication? How is wanting women to submit to your sexual whims as a condition of being taken seriously about equality an issue of "honest communication"?

I don't know how many nice guys don't make a good mate. How many guys seem to be "nice" and turn out to be self-serving assholes?

they do it for bad boys who are not good mate material; how do you account for that?

The "bad boys" have either built a reputation or have put some effort into getting those girls into their bed. And some women are turned on by the "bad boy" image. Those women are going after what they want.

As for how I account for it, I said "generally". Women are growing more free with their sexuality.