Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Nick Danger
That is an interesting response, because I did not describe a means. I described only an outcome, a system in which a woman could not know for certain that she would always win. You appear to oppose this reflexively. Why?

Sorry it took so long for me to respond. I wasn't dodging your question; I've been out of town for several days.

As we have discussed before, I am not fond of the "men's rights movement." -- and not because I have any personal axe to grind. In fact, I don't have children and I have never been divorced.

Since this thread is basically dead, as it should be, I won't go into more detail here. Next time you decide to discuss men's rights, though, I will be more than willing to discuss the subject more thoroughly. Just make it on a weekend, because I don't have much free time these days during the week. :)

755 posted on 07/11/2002 4:05:45 PM PDT by independentmind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 671 | View Replies ]


To: independentmind
I wasn't dodging your question

Oh good. Then perhaps you'll answer it. I asked you why you reflexibly oppose a system in which the woman would not always be certain she would win.

That you are not fond of a "men's rights movement" doesn't really answer that. Suppose we had a children's rights movement instead, and it started agitating for a system in which the woman would not always win. Would you oppose that as well?

756 posted on 07/11/2002 4:58:59 PM PDT by Nick Danger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 755 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson