It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Destinyone
Originally posted by Phenomium
Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by Phenomium
Female is a gender, Feminism is, apparently, your pet peeve.
If you wish there is an entire arsenal of synonyms for the world female here.
And a decent read about how to define species here. And it's safe, it was written by a dude.
~Heffedit on 10/2/12 by Hefficide because: typo - getting late n stuff
Whatever man...you are really splitting hairs here...this is nothing more than a magicians distraction trick that you are pulling here.
I feel so sorry for your wife. You have no capacity to see that you are wrong in any way shape or form...ever.
I can feel her oppression from the way you post.
Des
Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by Phenomium
And judging by your avatar, I assume you're as crazy as Johnny.
Heerrreee's Johnnnyyyy!
And no, not in the Ed McMahon voice.
No harm, no foul. We're even.
Originally posted by FailedProphet
I am going to agree with the majority consensus in this thread that the OP is a little...confused, shall we say. My reasoning is that I have yet to see any concrete evidence of Romney saying he would do anything for men or against feminism, etc. I am not sure why the OP thinks things will change with Romney at the helm. Maybe because he is conservative rather than liberal? But look, in 8 years under Bush feminism was hardly rolled back, so why would you expect anything along those lines from Mr. R. who if anything comes across as more socially moderate?
Be that as it may, I do feel compelled to step up in defense of the OP to some extent. First of all, I think the responses in this thread are inappropriate and if the shoe was on the other foot I'd wager a lot of them would be removed as contrary to T&C. So many personal attacks and ad homs it makes my head spin. "You need psychological help," "you are insecure," "you can't get laid." REALLY? That's your answer? I thought ATS was better than that.
Where I come from, ad homs like that mean your basic argument is weak. Chew on that, if you please.
Now, like I said the OP is coming on a little strong and I think his logic is flawed, but I do NOT think some of the responses in this thread are appropriate, so consider throttling it back a bit. Or perhaps ask yourself why you feel compelled to issue ad homs in the first place. Could it be that the OP is onto something fundamental, however flawed?
I think the past injustices against women have been overplayed. Oh, the horror of staying home and caring for children while men went off to be maimed and die in wars and coal mines, or work themselves into an early grave! What "oppression"! And yet its leaned on all the time as an excuse for what are shaping up to be excesses in the present day. Fact is, men do experience health issues, workplace issues, and custody issues that put them at a distinct DISADVANTAGE to women. The feminist response seems to be either to try to laugh it off or to use ad hom attacks. Both are WEAK. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by FailedProphet
To me, "men's rights" are much like white people claiming to be oppressed by minorities.
You almost have to laugh them off because when you look at the fairly recent history of the U.S, women were once considered property (and still are in some places!) and they were expected to submit to their husbands.
Much like the white man's claim of being oppressed by minorities. What did history tell us about white men? They held African Americans in slavery. They butchered millions of Native Americans through illness and war.
It will take quite some time for both groups to have any merit to their claims. They'll have to experience the prejudices of those they accuse and we know this will never happen thanks to a little thing called "white privilege".
Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by Phenomium
Actually, I have the advantage here.
My mind isn't warped by bitterness like that of those who loathe women.
Originally posted by FailedProphet
Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by Phenomium
Actually, I have the advantage here.
My mind isn't warped by bitterness like that of those who loathe women.
See, more ad homs. "Your mind is warped." "You are bitter." And the lefty's favorite screech: "haaaaaate!"
Originally posted by Phenomium
You're right. Meh, what can be done about it now? I also married a bad woman (cheater,liar) before I met the wife I am with now.....]
Originally posted by FailedProphet
reply to post by Destinyone
Nope, but what's wrong with calling out ad hom arguments for what they are?
In a formal debate, use of personal insults is an automatic LOSS.
Why rely on ad homs and personal attacks if the logic of your position is so unvanquishable?
Originally posted by FailedProphet
reply to post by Destinyone
Never said this was a formal debate. However, the fact that it is considered an illegitimate debate tactic does indicate its fundamental weakness.
Note that personal attacks are also expressly forbidden by the Terms and Conditions of ATS. Now, we are on ATS, are we not?
Funny, we had a moderator here earlier who seems to have gone mysteriously quiet on the topic of personal debates. Perhaps he or another moderator would like to step in and clear things up?