equal rights to being punched in the face
- Thread starter angrybellsprout
- Start date
- Status
shhhh, don't give me away. 
ABS:
It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that nobody has a right to assault another person, regardless of gender. Assault is illegal.
What discrimination?
Which women, specifically?
Ha. Liberals invented the concept of equal rights.
I think this is all in your imagination. Like mountainhare, you seem to desire victim status for some reason.
Which women, specifically, have advocated that violence against men ought to be encouraged?
It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that nobody has a right to assault another person, regardless of gender. Assault is illegal.
What discrimination?
Which women, specifically?
Ha. Liberals invented the concept of equal rights.
I think this is all in your imagination. Like mountainhare, you seem to desire victim status for some reason.
Which women, specifically, have advocated that violence against men ought to be encouraged?
Tiassa:
Does this mean that you're going to provide a source to support your conspiracy theory that 'women's night' in bars is used so that guys have a greater chance of getting a lay?
If you want angry to start posting sources to support claims, which IMHO are not disputed by anyone who has even half a social life, you might want to set the example.
As the saying goes, put up, or shut the hell up.
Does this mean that you're going to provide a source to support your conspiracy theory that 'women's night' in bars is used so that guys have a greater chance of getting a lay?
If you want angry to start posting sources to support claims, which IMHO are not disputed by anyone who has even half a social life, you might want to set the example.
As the saying goes, put up, or shut the hell up.
.jpg)
Maybe you should cram that attitude
(chortle!)
Of course. I will certainly oblige:
To quote every relevant point of discussion in that article makes for a massive quote. Rather than trying to tailor the whole thing for you, I would encourage you to click the link and actually read the article.
In the meantime, to borrow a phrase, "As the saying goes, put up, or shut the hell up."
Let's go. As I recall, your pal has been asked to support some of his claims, and has thus far refused to. And you ... well, you wrote—
—but, as we see from Gillespie v. Coastline, there's not much to support your pathetic tantrum. In fact, your argument seems rather insupportable, and therefore your condescension indefensible.
______________________
Notes:
Grossman, Joanna. "The End of "Ladies' Night" in New Jersey: A Controversial Ruling Deems the Practice Sex Discrimination Against Men". Writ. January 15, 2004. See http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20040615.html
Mountainhare said:
(chortle!)
Of course. I will certainly oblige:
To quote every relevant point of discussion in that article makes for a massive quote. Rather than trying to tailor the whole thing for you, I would encourage you to click the link and actually read the article.
In the meantime, to borrow a phrase, "As the saying goes, put up, or shut the hell up."
Let's go. As I recall, your pal has been asked to support some of his claims, and has thus far refused to. And you ... well, you wrote—
Mountainhare said:
—but, as we see from Gillespie v. Coastline, there's not much to support your pathetic tantrum. In fact, your argument seems rather insupportable, and therefore your condescension indefensible.
______________________
Notes:
Grossman, Joanna. "The End of "Ladies' Night" in New Jersey: A Controversial Ruling Deems the Practice Sex Discrimination Against Men". Writ. January 15, 2004. See http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20040615.html
Don't forget his professional license. Real smart: If a man can't pay child support, take away the one thing which gives him any earning power.
The anti-male legal system at work, in all its splendour!
The anti-male legal system at work, in all its splendour!
Tiassa:
Clearly I was incorrect regarding that issue in the United States. Female patronage to bars in Australia has never been a problem, although it's still not some 'conspiracy' amongst all men. It's a business ploy.
But even if such a policy of discrimination does aim to generate both more female and male patronage to the bar, that does not change its inherently sexist nature against men.
Clearly I was incorrect regarding that issue in the United States. Female patronage to bars in Australia has never been a problem, although it's still not some 'conspiracy' amongst all men. It's a business ploy.
But even if such a policy of discrimination does aim to generate both more female and male patronage to the bar, that does not change its inherently sexist nature against men.
you live here?
why dont you challange it in the anti-descrimination tribunal then?
it is definitly not unheard of for the tribunal to rule against companies because of descrimination against men. For intance the case of the private school boy who wasnt alowed to have long hair. That was rule discrimintory and the school had to decide to either drop the issue or try to force its girls to cut all there pony tails off
why dont you challange it in the anti-descrimination tribunal then?
it is definitly not unheard of for the tribunal to rule against companies because of descrimination against men. For intance the case of the private school boy who wasnt alowed to have long hair. That was rule discrimintory and the school had to decide to either drop the issue or try to force its girls to cut all there pony tails off
Mod Hat - Notice
Mod Hat - Notice
MetaKron and Mountainhare: You are advised that you should provide a reference citation stating specifically that if a man (and only a man) is unable (incapable) of paying the court's ordered alimony/support, his driver's (MetaKron) and/or professional (Mountainhare) licenses will be taken away°.
Angrybellsprout, you have already been reminded of the necessity of providing sources and references. You have already been advised that your attitude that you don't need sources to back up your assertions of "common knowledge" is wrongly founded for this forum. Yet you have again refused to provide any reasonable citation. And do not pretend for a moment that reproducing the cover of a book should suffice. You are expected to, on regular occasions, provide some sort of rational argument in favor of whatever thesis it is you so inadequately assert. Without support for inflammatory and contentious assertions, you're merely trolling. And this is an official warning: further trolling will be subject to direct intervention.
In any of these cases, members unwilling to provide support for contentious assertions are welcome to withdraw those assertions.
____________________
Notes:
° licenses will be taken away — In order that there be no confusion, we should note that, as the general assertion is that men are being treated unfairly, and the specific proposition refers directly to men, the laws in question must be shown to be applied to men only, and not women. Furthermore, in demonstrating that the law targets a man's inability to pay the required support, the question of capability must be completely independent of a man's willingness to pay. In other words, if after a period as a "deadbeat dad", a man finds himself unable to afford the cumulative total of his delinquent obligations, such a condition will not be considered sufficient to fulfill the claims made.
Mod Hat - Notice
MetaKron and Mountainhare: You are advised that you should provide a reference citation stating specifically that if a man (and only a man) is unable (incapable) of paying the court's ordered alimony/support, his driver's (MetaKron) and/or professional (Mountainhare) licenses will be taken away°.
Angrybellsprout, you have already been reminded of the necessity of providing sources and references. You have already been advised that your attitude that you don't need sources to back up your assertions of "common knowledge" is wrongly founded for this forum. Yet you have again refused to provide any reasonable citation. And do not pretend for a moment that reproducing the cover of a book should suffice. You are expected to, on regular occasions, provide some sort of rational argument in favor of whatever thesis it is you so inadequately assert. Without support for inflammatory and contentious assertions, you're merely trolling. And this is an official warning: further trolling will be subject to direct intervention.
In any of these cases, members unwilling to provide support for contentious assertions are welcome to withdraw those assertions.
____________________
Notes:
° licenses will be taken away — In order that there be no confusion, we should note that, as the general assertion is that men are being treated unfairly, and the specific proposition refers directly to men, the laws in question must be shown to be applied to men only, and not women. Furthermore, in demonstrating that the law targets a man's inability to pay the required support, the question of capability must be completely independent of a man's willingness to pay. In other words, if after a period as a "deadbeat dad", a man finds himself unable to afford the cumulative total of his delinquent obligations, such a condition will not be considered sufficient to fulfill the claims made.
(Insert title here)
Removing my green hat for this part, I would like to point out that there are reasons I included, in my response to Asguard (to which you so forcefully objected), two statements that, had you given them proper attention, might have had some influence over the nature of your criticism and subsequent demand. Those phrases are,
Additionally—
—I would remind that, while the courts in New Jersey, at least, agree with you entirely, I really do think that particular complaint is rather petty and selfish.
As I noted:
It just seems to me that inherent in the focus on the poor, oppressed men is a disturbing implication: That our wives, sisters, mothers and daughters are measured according to the prospect of what sexual satisfaction they might provide men is, in the end, unimportant because I shouldn't have to pay more for a drink!
I would suggest that the discrimination of sex-based bar promotions is better solved by eliminating the misogyny that exploits women as objects of pathetic, depraved lust. In other words, if "ladies' night" didn't increase male patronage (ostensibly for superficial and exploitative suggestions), the whole idea would, in the end, be infeasible.
When the empowered majority is only willing to address societal imbalance through the most selfish of contexts, we do nothing to address the disease.
I would be interested to see, for instance, how the New Jersey law would treat a "ladies' night" that didn't involve specific sex-based discounts and privileges, but instead took ESPN off the televisions and ran programming more consistent with the female audience, changed over the juke (especially as they're just mp3 networks in fancy boxes) to "chick music", and ran specials on what are generally considered "chick" drinks. (Lemon Drops? Weizen Berry?)
Personally, I don't go for ladies' nights. To the other, I was once in Belltown's popular Cyclops, and while the hummus was overpriced to start with, the beautiful Boundary Bay IPA was hard-pressed to redeem the experience, since the abominable Garden State was playing on all the visible screens in the bar. I couldn't even guess how many men would waste their time on a ladies' night where they had to endure berry beer and Boys on the Side.
Something about business ploys comes to mind. I doubt this kind of "ladies' night" would be successful. But who knows? Maybe sponsor an Oprah Book Club reading circle?
Mountainhare said:
Removing my green hat for this part, I would like to point out that there are reasons I included, in my response to Asguard (to which you so forcefully objected), two statements that, had you given them proper attention, might have had some influence over the nature of your criticism and subsequent demand. Those phrases are,
• I don't know how it works in Australia ....
• At least compared to how it works in the U.S. ....
• At least compared to how it works in the U.S. ....
Additionally—
—I would remind that, while the courts in New Jersey, at least, agree with you entirely, I really do think that particular complaint is rather petty and selfish.
As I noted:
.... the problem with this isn't that men are getting shafted, but that the pandering to women is a misogynistic act in its own
It just seems to me that inherent in the focus on the poor, oppressed men is a disturbing implication: That our wives, sisters, mothers and daughters are measured according to the prospect of what sexual satisfaction they might provide men is, in the end, unimportant because I shouldn't have to pay more for a drink!
I would suggest that the discrimination of sex-based bar promotions is better solved by eliminating the misogyny that exploits women as objects of pathetic, depraved lust. In other words, if "ladies' night" didn't increase male patronage (ostensibly for superficial and exploitative suggestions), the whole idea would, in the end, be infeasible.
When the empowered majority is only willing to address societal imbalance through the most selfish of contexts, we do nothing to address the disease.
I would be interested to see, for instance, how the New Jersey law would treat a "ladies' night" that didn't involve specific sex-based discounts and privileges, but instead took ESPN off the televisions and ran programming more consistent with the female audience, changed over the juke (especially as they're just mp3 networks in fancy boxes) to "chick music", and ran specials on what are generally considered "chick" drinks. (Lemon Drops? Weizen Berry?)
Personally, I don't go for ladies' nights. To the other, I was once in Belltown's popular Cyclops, and while the hummus was overpriced to start with, the beautiful Boundary Bay IPA was hard-pressed to redeem the experience, since the abominable Garden State was playing on all the visible screens in the bar. I couldn't even guess how many men would waste their time on a ladies' night where they had to endure berry beer and Boys on the Side.
Something about business ploys comes to mind. I doubt this kind of "ladies' night" would be successful. But who knows? Maybe sponsor an Oprah Book Club reading circle?
Last edited:
Tiassa:
I don't jump when you 'advise' me to, you holier than thou windbag. Even when you do try to intimidate with you mod hat and the green font.
What I find truly hilarious is how liberals such as yourself pounce on the higher black arrest/prosecution rates and automatically assume racism, and the pay gap as 'sexism', while not drawing the conclusion of sexism when the vast majority of those paying punitive child support and alimony are in fact men.
And yes, I could post the supporting statistics. But what I've stated is such common fucking knowledge, I doubt that posting the stats is necessary. Unless you deny that it's overwhelmingly the women who receive the children after a divorce? Unless you deny that it's more often than not the fathers who pay child support? Unless you deny that it's 'deadbeat dads' who are targeted and slandered in the media, not 'deadbeat mothers'?
Because if you disagree with either of the previous statements, then I'd be bloody overjoyed provide the supporting stats for the first two statements, and the media articles for the third one.
asguard:
Ahh, stop with the BAWWWW you whiny baby. Isn't it a rule of this forum that you need to use a spellcheck on your gabble before posting it?
I don't jump when you 'advise' me to, you holier than thou windbag. Even when you do try to intimidate with you mod hat and the green font.
What I find truly hilarious is how liberals such as yourself pounce on the higher black arrest/prosecution rates and automatically assume racism, and the pay gap as 'sexism', while not drawing the conclusion of sexism when the vast majority of those paying punitive child support and alimony are in fact men.
And yes, I could post the supporting statistics. But what I've stated is such common fucking knowledge, I doubt that posting the stats is necessary. Unless you deny that it's overwhelmingly the women who receive the children after a divorce? Unless you deny that it's more often than not the fathers who pay child support? Unless you deny that it's 'deadbeat dads' who are targeted and slandered in the media, not 'deadbeat mothers'?
Because if you disagree with either of the previous statements, then I'd be bloody overjoyed provide the supporting stats for the first two statements, and the media articles for the third one.
asguard:
Ahh, stop with the BAWWWW you whiny baby. Isn't it a rule of this forum that you need to use a spellcheck on your gabble before posting it?
Tiassa:
I find it quite disturbing that you're unable to comprehend how: "Women get sex and free drinks/Men gets sex and has to pay for drinks" is not sexist. It's like you seek to slander the male gender at every perceivable opportunity.
By the way, weren't you arguing previously that the 'Woman's night' was actually an attempt to pander to men. In fact, using your shitty logic, one could argue that the 'Woman's night' policy is misandry, because men are being considered as animals who only attend a bar to fuck drunk chicks.
I find it quite disturbing that you're unable to comprehend how: "Women get sex and free drinks/Men gets sex and has to pay for drinks" is not sexist. It's like you seek to slander the male gender at every perceivable opportunity.
By the way, weren't you arguing previously that the 'Woman's night' was actually an attempt to pander to men. In fact, using your shitty logic, one could argue that the 'Woman's night' policy is misandry, because men are being considered as animals who only attend a bar to fuck drunk chicks.
Last edited:
I don't see why. Are you perhaps trying to obscure the common knowledge that almost all delinquent fathers are punished while very few delinquent mothers are punished?
I will not accede to the condition that you are attempting to impose. I am already painfully aware that you want to simply get rid of conversations that put women in general, or even a certain few women, in a bad light. If you want credibility I would suggest that you do this in an adult fashion instead of employing a disingenuous method like you attempted here.
What's this? You're not bowing to Tiassa's ridiculous demands, which he is forcing on you with his moderator privilege? The nerve!
Amazing, isn't it?
Don't worry, if they ever introduce a breast tax, I'll be the first to argue that it's not sexist. After all, some men have man boobs.
Just remember that you are dealing with someone who said that it would be sexist to have equal rights to being punched in the face. The thought that pushing for equality is sexist is just proof enough of the fault in liberal logic, and is justification for simply ignoring such individuals that obviously hate the idea of equal rights.
I also think that it is funny that asguard is baawwwwing about the fact that he is too lazy to figure out what Google is again.
I also think that it is funny that asguard is baawwwwing about the fact that he is too lazy to figure out what Google is again.
- Status