The OTHER idiot woman the Democrats sent to the house...

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 minute ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Sure have. A LONG, LONG way. Now you as a woman can merely accuse a man of wrongdoing and ruin his life. Now you can abort your unborn children at will. Now you can divorce your husband for any reason, or no reason at all and then proceed to destroy him financially with the blessing of the state! (not saying, of course YOU specifically would do any of those. But you can now.)

 

 

What a golden age we live in.

 

 

 

 

 

1) "merely accuse" - I do not think you followed my posts in the Kavanaugh thread. This lynching by social media needs to stop. 
2) I am definitely pro-choice - and hope for every woman's sake she never has to make that choice. 
3) I gave up alimony so I could get rid of my ex-husband faster. And yes, I think it is a good thing that women no longer have to stay in abusive relationships or stay in relationships where the husband cheats (boys will be boys!), and that she has a right to have primary custody of her children is the court decides she should. Better than the past when women were considered "property" could be beaten at will, and if her husband brought suit for divorce, she never saw her children again. 

But sure, all women in the United States have the same, homogeneous views - just as all men do. {insert huge sarcasm tag}

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

8 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

1) "merely accuse" - I do not think you followed my posts in the Kavanaugh thread. This lynching by social media needs to stop. 
2) I am definitely pro-choice - and hope for every woman's sake she never has to make that choice. 
3) I gave up alimony so I could get rid of my ex-husband faster. And yes, I think it is a good thing that women no longer have to stay in abusive relationships or stay in relationships where the husband cheats (boys will be boys!), and that she has a right to have primary custody of her children is the court decides she should. Better than the past when women were considered "property" could be beaten at will, and if her husband brought suit for divorce, she never saw her children again. 

But sure, all women in the United States have the same, homogeneous views - just as all men do. {insert huge sarcasm tag}

 

1) well, you're to be lauded. But #metoo is a real thing, and really evil. Can you blame men for having a jaded view of modern feminists?

2) Hope doesn't pay the bills. But for Planned Parenthood, butchery of many thousands of children a year sure does.

3) Again, admirable, but most divorced women I know (including the harpy to whom i used to be married) LOVE destroying their exes, especially by witholding visitation while simultaneously attempting to acquire the largest possible financial settlements from the men to whom they used to be married to.

 

 

 

Edited January 8, 2019 by Joe in Winslow

[Buffalo_Gal]

Just now, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

My only quibble is that you've always had those rights.  They weren't earned nor awarded.

 

What was fought for was the protection of those rights under the law, throwing off those who would oppress you (the larger you), and violate those rights, which are immutable and intrinsic.

 

It's that single notion which made (makes) the subjugation of women a moral wrong.  IE.  If those rights are not intrinsic and immutable, then nothing was being violated through the general oppression of women.

I must have missed the right to vote as always being there. Link (yeah it is wiki, but it is fast and easy)
I must have missed the right to own property thing as always being there. Link (yeah it is wiki, but it is fast and easy)
I must have missed the right for women to always be their own person. Link (yeah it is wiki, but it is fast and easy) 

Now if you mean me personally due to my age, yes, you are correct. But if you go back 100+ years? Not-so-much. 

I do not agree that "the rights were always there" as that is untrue for all men and women. At some point, those rights we take for granted today were "fought" for - whether by war or by argument (and it may have been longer than 100 years ago, it may have been 1000 years ago or 5000 years ago).  And as you can see by some of the links above, some of those rights were indeed removed for women after being earned. 

I stand by my assertation that women have come a long way vis-à-vis rights, laws, and protections the last 100+ years in the United States. And I have no desire to go back to prior to that, nevermind live according to a religious law that predates the middle ages. 

[Foxx]

those rights are/were always inalienable, in spite of man and his misguided ways.

Edited January 8, 2019 by Foxx

[DC Tom]

9 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

I must have missed the right to vote as always being there. Link (yeah it is wiki, but it is fast and easy)
I must have missed the right to own property thing as always being there. Link (yeah it is wiki, but it is fast and easy)
I must have missed the right for women to always be their own person. Link (yeah it is wiki, but it is fast and easy) 

Now if you mean me personally due to my age, yes, you are correct. But if you go back 100+ years? Not-so-much. 

I do not agree that "the rights were always there" as that is untrue for all men and women. At some point, those rights we take for granted today were "fought" for - whether by war or by argument (and it may have been longer than 100 years ago, it may have been 1000 years ago or 5000 years ago).  And as you can see by some of the links above, some of those rights were indeed removed for women after being earned. 

I stand by my assertation that women have come a long way vis-à-vis rights, laws, and protections the last 100+ years in the United States. And I have no desire to go back to prior to that, nevermind live according to a religious law that predates the middle ages. 

 

But you've always had the right to get back in the kitchen finish cooking my dinner.  

 

And bring me a beer while you're at it.

[RochesterRob]

7 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

But you've always had the right to get back in the kitchen finish cooking my dinner.  

 

And bring me a beer while you're at it.

  I didn't know Buffalo Gal's name was Edith?  

[Uncle Joe]

2 hours ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

It shouldn't need elaboration. The fact that you're asking the question is an indicator of how far gone the situation is.

 

We live in an era where EVERY idea, no matter how bad, is to be listened to and treasured in the name of diversity. I roundly reject that thought. There is a universal rightness and wrongness, and Islam as a whole, "radical" or not falls on the side of "wrongness."  Here's my thought: there is not a "your" truth and a "my" truth, there is only THE truth. And the moment we start allowing for multiple truths, we allow the whole of our society to disintegrate.

 

 

 

That's why I always liked math. Usually 1 truth (answer) that can't be debated.
Except Josh Allen's stats. They are debatable.

Edited January 8, 2019 by Uncle Joe

[plenzmd1]

2 hours ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

It shouldn't need elaboration. The fact that you're asking the question is an indicator of how far gone the situation is.

 

We live in an era where EVERY idea, no matter how bad, is to be listened to and treasured in the name of diversity. I roundly reject that thought. There is a universal rightness and wrongness, and Islam as a whole, "radical" or not falls on the side of "wrongness."  Here's my thought: there is not a "your" truth and a "my" truth, there is only THE truth. And the moment we start allowing for multiple truths, we allow the whole of our society to disintegrate.

 

 

and who is the arbiter of said truth?  You?

 

You say you reject the notion of listening to new ideas that you think are bad..so in other words you are saying MY truth...

 

to me, THE truth is prolly 180 degrees from your truth..but i guess you will say yours is THE truth.

 

THX, needed the chuckle

 

[RochesterRob]

31 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

1) "merely accuse" - I do not think you followed my posts in the Kavanaugh thread. This lynching by social media needs to stop. 
2) I am definitely pro-choice - and hope for every woman's sake she never has to make that choice. 
3) I gave up alimony so I could get rid of my ex-husband faster. And yes, I think it is a good thing that women no longer have to stay in abusive relationships or stay in relationships where the husband cheats (boys will be boys!), and that she has a right to have primary custody of her children is the court decides she should. Better than the past when women were considered "property" could be beaten at will, and if her husband brought suit for divorce, she never saw her children again. 

But sure, all women in the United States have the same, homogeneous views - just as all men do. {insert huge sarcasm tag}

  I'm pretty far right of center most of the time and what has been done under the guise of being pro-choice has given me the chills but I agree with a lot of your post.  I think that far too many people get divorced without really trying to work through a marriage but there is a time where you have to face reality and see that it is hopeless.  Sometimes it is the only way to get one or both parties to do the growing that needs to be done.  A really bad marriage a lot of times puts the kids from that union off to a bad start.  Sometimes a kid has to do nothing but can carry a stigma if stuck in a home with a lot of violence happening.  I watched guys from bad homes get shunned by the girls while in high school because "if dad smacked around the wife or drank constantly then the boy will be the same."  Kids have enough burdens to carry while in school if their household "looks" different from what others perceive as "normal."

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

and who is the arbiter of said truth?  You?

 

You say you reject the notion of listening to new ideas that you think are bad..so in other words you are saying MY truth...

 

to me, THE truth is prolly 180 degrees from your truth..but i guess you will say yours is THE truth.

 

THX, needed the chuckle

 

 

So then, in your world there's no moral absolutes huh?

So being a pedo kiddy-diddler's ok, because in that pervert's eyes, there's nothing wrong because love is love?

 

 

Talk about a chuckle.

 

[3rdnlng]

22 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

I must have missed the right to vote as always being there. Link (yeah it is wiki, but it is fast and easy)
I must have missed the right to own property thing as always being there. Link (yeah it is wiki, but it is fast and easy)
I must have missed the right for women to always be their own person. Link (yeah it is wiki, but it is fast and easy) 

Now if you mean me personally due to my age, yes, you are correct. But if you go back 100+ years? Not-so-much. 

I do not agree that "the rights were always there" as that is untrue for all men and women. At some point, those rights we take for granted today were "fought" for - whether by war or by argument (and it may have been longer than 100 years ago, it may have been 1000 years ago or 5000 years ago).  And as you can see by some of the links above, some of those rights were indeed removed for women after being earned. 

I stand by my assertation that women have come a long way vis-à-vis rights, laws, and protections the last 100+ years in the United States. And I have no desire to go back to prior to that, nevermind live according to a religious law that predates the middle ages. 

Those rights have always been there, as created by our Creator. They just weren't recognized by the Neanderthals of the time. Looking back on history and the subrogation of women by men was the men's loss as much as the women's loss. I say that not as a person trying to call men equal victims but lamenting the fact that men cheated themselves out of true partnership.

[plenzmd1]

5 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

So then, in your world there's no moral absolutes huh?

So being a pedo kiddy-diddler's ok, because in that pervert's eyes, there's nothing wrong because love is love?

 

 

Talk about a chuckle.

 

Such a silly statement.

 

Be  a grown up and tell me who is the arbiter of THE truth as you mentioned in your post.

 

 

[Doc Brown]

3 hours ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

It shouldn't need elaboration. The fact that you're asking the question is an indicator of how far gone the situation is.

 

We live in an era where EVERY idea, no matter how bad, is to be listened to and treasured in the name of diversity. I roundly reject that thought. There is a universal rightness and wrongness, and Islam as a whole, "radical" or not falls on the side of "wrongness."  Here's my thought: there is not a "your" truth and a "my" truth, there is only THE truth. And the moment we start allowing for multiple truths, we allow the whole of our society to disintegrate.

 

 

Okay.  That's kind of why I wanted to hear it from you.

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

I must have missed the right to vote as always being there. Link (yeah it is wiki, but it is fast and easy)
I must have missed the right to own property thing as always being there. Link (yeah it is wiki, but it is fast and easy)
I must have missed the right for women to always be their own person. Link (yeah it is wiki, but it is fast and easy) 

Now if you mean me personally due to my age, yes, you are correct. But if you go back 100+ years? Not-so-much. 

I do not agree that "the rights were always there" as that is untrue for all men and women. At some point, those rights we take for granted today were "fought" for - whether by war or by argument (and it may have been longer than 100 years ago, it may have been 1000 years ago or 5000 years ago).  And as you can see by some of the links above, some of those rights were indeed removed for women after being earned. 

I stand by my assertation that women have come a long way vis-à-vis rights, laws, and protections the last 100+ years in the United States. And I have no desire to go back to prior to that, nevermind live according to a religious law that predates the middle ages. 

 

No, women always had those rights.  Just as blacks did. (voting aside, as that's not a right, but rather a civil privilege)

 

What was happening is that the rights of women (inalienable and intrinsic) were being systematically violated, and were not protected by law.  What women fought for was to have their natural rights acknowledged and protected by their government.

 

This is not a semantic difference

 

If women did not have natural rights prior to their "emancipation" then there was nothing wrong with subjugating them, and no moral argument to be made for their liberation.  If those rights did not exist prior, then no injustice existed in need of correction.

 

Further, if they did not exist, then you are, quite literally, making the argument for the democratization of your (the literal you) rights; granting majority the just prerogative of stripping you of your rights with no moral argument against.

Edited January 8, 2019 by TakeYouToTasker

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

10 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

Such a silly statement.

 

Be  a grown up and tell me who is the arbiter of THE truth as you mentioned in your post.

 

 

How's it a silly statement?

 

YOU are the one advocating for moral equivalence.

 

Who are YOU to tell a pedo he's wrong, given your worldview?

 

I, on the other hand, have no such problem.

 

As to your second question, I believe God to be the arbitrator of truth. As in the Judeo-Christian variety.

 

 

Edited January 8, 2019 by Joe in Winslow

[Foxx]

truth is perhaps a misnomer, as it is a social construct created within an observable and objective reality. beliefs define truth

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 minutes ago, Foxx said:

truth is perhaps a misnomer, as it is a social construct created within an observable and objective reality. beliefs define truth

 

Universal truth, yes or no:

 

The sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

 

 

[Foxx]

7 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Universal truth, yes or no:

 

The sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

 

 

this is an observable and objective deduction. it is based upon the north being in it's current position. would your answer still be the same when the poles have flipped (as they have countless times previously)?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

6 minutes ago, Foxx said:

this is an observable and objective deduction. it is based upon the north being in it's current position. would your answer still be the same when the poles have flipped (as they have countless times previously)?

 

So help me to understand your position:

 

Because truth is a "social construct," different cultures can espouse a different objective truth? If that's the case, is it  incumbent on other cultures to accept one culture's objective truth? Should everyone everywhere accept everyone else's truth? How, in such a world can ANY objective judgement be made? At that point does social order become completely irrelevant?

 

Example: Unbongo tribe from some remote island believes that beheading and eating the brains of one's enemies is morally acceptable, and even desirable. A member of said tribe moves to the US, kills his neighbor and eats his brains. Should we, as a society tolerate his "truth" and accept the behavior?

 

Edited January 8, 2019 by Joe in Winslow

[DC Tom]

4 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Example: Unbongo tribe from some remote island believes that beheading and eating the brains of one's enemies is morally acceptable, and even desirable. A member of said tribe moves to the US, kills his neighbor and eats his brains. Should we, as a society tolerate his "truth" and accept the behavior?

 

 

Pretty sure he'd starve in the US...