Posted on 09/17/2001 11:23:11 AM PDT by BigTime
Sure you are. I'll ask again. When you were 6 years old, could you have stopped Susan Smith or Andrea Yates.
I ask this to make a point, which is that every male is not bigger and stronger than every female.
No, not quite. You see I can read, "(I'm not, but I'm playing devil's advocate)" besides in order for me to have included you as a feminist I would have written, "The only argument you or any Other feminist...Which I did not.
You can read better than I can keep track of my posts sometimes.
Nope, sorry, the rules still apply. I know several "built" women in my gym and NONE of them would even think of taking me PERIOD. The biggest of which can press over 200lbs.
Well, if you're that big and invulernable, then more power to ya.
Martial arts make no diference whatsoever, mass is mass, no amount of technique can compensate for it.
And no amount of mass can protect targets such as eyeballs, the throat, or our two favorite little subjects. That's where awreness must come in.
...cause I assure you she can die of lead poisoning just as well as me, only thing is if she runs out of ammo she'll surely die of MAN poisoning.
As the old saying goes, God made man and woman, but John Colt made them equal.
NOW I KNOW YOUR A WOMAN. are you sugessting that women Don't?
Not in the least. By all means review the answers to my original challenge. If I was making that point, then I have been thoroughly refuted by now.
So your sugesting that we just allow this attack to stand unanswered? Would you have made the same desicion with the attack on perl harbor?
Of course not. I only made the point that it was men who initiated it. Bin Laden is a man, so I'm told.
THIS IS NOT A WOMANS WORLD IT IS RUN BY MEN PERIOD.
Oh well, at least you admit it.;-)
(your pretty good at this DA thing)
A lot better than I am at remembering I was playing that.
You're the first poster to tell me that.
If a girl I'm dating gets mad and hits me, it is my duty to shrug it off.
You just made my point for me. It's your right to defend yourself and disable your attacker, not to just "shrug it off".
If she continues to hit me, I will restrain her...
Ask Warren Moon how well that works.
...or leave, depending on the situation, and terminate the relationship.
So now you're using common sense against me, huh?
If a total stranger runs up and hits me (not counting small children), I will beat the living crap out of them, again regardless of gender.
As is your right.
I am still having trouble understanding what point you are trying to make.
My original point was how would one rebut that violence is the result of men. Excellent historical evidence to the contrary, as well as the comment the they who rock the cradle rule the world, was provided in response.
Hopefully, this post will clear up any other confusion.
Any religion that enforces totally hiding women under black clothing just because their males can't controll their carnal urges, can NOT be populated with real men.
The very fact that . . . you don't consider in-utero living humans (male and female) to be worthy of legal protection, proves that you would use a technicality to re-define humans as non-humans like Hitler did the jews. Further more, you would ignore the moral and civil-injustice of the act on the basis that it is legal ... just the same as the oppressive male-dominated societies justify their abuse of women as "legal".
You are what you hate!
You just made my point for me. It's your right to defend yourself and disable your attacker, not to just "shrug it off".
It's my duty to society to be civilized and not squish like a bug anyone who crosses me. It also seems wrong to use my power (physical strength, in this case) in retaliation for a brief emotional outburst. We sometimes argue with those we care about, and should try to moderate our response. Those who would maliciously harm us deserve the best (or worst, depending on POV) malice we can dream up.
So, I guess I agree with you, I just couldn't see where you were coming from or going with all this. Best Wishes, Good Will, and Good Night. :-)
http://www.capitolgrilling.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=002270
prambo
It's not just about retaliation. You don't know that your attacker isn't going to come after you with weapons or injure you somehow. Once you're attacked, it's your right to stop him or her before he or she injures you. That's my only point there.
And Bryan, if you want to look at the scoreboard, let me point out that Democrats have been in the White House for 40 of the last 69 years. Doesn't matter if they won in landslides or not...just ask our current Prez.
She wants us to forcibly good-vibe them into being mellow.
And I'll point out that 1964 was a benchmark year. It was the last time that we saw a classic liberal party in this country, and it won a landslide victory. After that, it completely redefined itself by adopting homosexual rights, the right to murder unborn children, the disarming of law-abiding citizens so that they can become defenseless victims of violent crime, and affirmative action quotas as the cornerstones of their party platform.
Since then, out of nine elections the conservative party has won three genuine landslides (1972, 1980 and 1984). The now-radical liberal party has won only three, and two of them were plurality victories (less than 50% was still good enough for a win, thanks to Perot).
I choose 1964 as the benchmark because the vast majority of Americans never voted in an election prior to 1964. This is really the modern era of American politics. So much has happened since 1964 that distinguishes this era from every election before it.
Safe houses? Why the language of the radical underground instead of the more innocuous sounding "shelter"?
Sounds like a hint to fugitive terrorists: come to us progressive feminists! We'll take good care of you!
I was a history major way back when, and most survey courses chose the end of WWII as the start of post-modern American history. Starting at 1964 would exclude the Marshall plan which defined much of our modern foreign policy, as well as the beginnings of the Vietnam War and the civil rights movement. So if you wanted to start at 1945, which excludes FDR, we have 28 years of Democrats in the White House and 28 years of Republicans in the White House. That's about as even as you can get. Of course, Bush will make it 29-28 at the end of this year, barring a whole slew of executive assassinations. But if one Supreme Court vote had went the other way, we might very well be talking about Gore making it 29-28. =) I chose 1932 because that's where you have the real start of the liberal Democratic party and the conservative Republican party IMO. Republicans are still trying to undo FDR's New Deal to this day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.