What the phuck is Gender Philosophy?

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:09 pm

Re: What the phuck is Gender Philosophy?

Post by Astro Cat »

seeds wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 1:56 pm
Astro Cat wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 1:19 pm I give up. Those are certainly all words, at least.
Didn't someone already welcome you to the "asylum"?

Surely you must have noticed by now that the distribution of meds is a bit spotty.

Where is nurse Ratched when you need her?
_______
Yeah... I have noticed that by now. I generally try to be nice about it.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: What the phuck is Gender Philosophy?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 12:17 pm
Phil8659 wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 10:07 am
Sculptor wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 9:53 am

What are you so scared of? Is your own relationship with your sexuality and gender so frail as to be challenged by others expressing their own?
You might be right, after all, having been married four times and accumulating, I cannot even recall how many grandchildren and great grandchildren, I am terrified of my pecker!

I am however very fortunate, my cat has a degree in psychology and, since she was spayed, she is impartial and gives me good advice.

Apparently, you do not understand people with very high I.Q.'s They end up either impotent, or satyrs. I am someone other husbands have actually brought their wives to me as some women do not know even how to climax.
Nothing you have said here excuses your bigotry and arrogance.
Why can't you just accept that other people are not the same as you?
After all what would the world be like if everyone had 3 failed marriages, and can't even keep count of their spawn?
Maybe LGBT people are going to save the planet by not spawning as many brats as you?
Another tender-hearted, empathetic, tolerant wokie...
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: What the phuck is Gender Philosophy?

Post by Walker »

To be tolerant is so spiritually superior. Ahh, take a moment to bask.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: What the phuck is Gender Philosophy?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Phil8659 wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 10:44 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 10:38 am
Phil8659 wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 10:07 am You might be right, after all, having been married four times and accumulating, I cannot even recall how many grandchildren and great grandchildren, I am terrified of my pecker!

I am however very fortunate, my cat has a degree in psychology and, since she was spayed, she is impartial and gives me good advice.

Apparently, you do not understand people with very high I.Q.'s They end up either impotent, or satyrs. I am someone other husbands have actually brought their wives to me as some women do not know even how to climax.
Interesting. Obviously you are a horribly broken old man now, bleating paranoid nonsense about Google oppressing you; bloviating asinine gibberish about mysticism and geometry; and most sadly of all trying to impress people with one constantly recycled joke about a hairdryer.

The fact that you threw in some totally believable boast about your high IQ earning you nights of sexual ecstacy with the wives of your humiliated peers is mainly disturbing because yet again you are hoping somebody is dumb enough to be intrigued and ask you your IQ.

Did you get through 8 decades in that condition, or is it something that only occurred recently as you started to spiral the drain?
LAMO, you do realize, you just informed everyone that you cannot even count generations. You are soo funny.
That's your takeaway is it? You don't want to be thought of as old enough for it to be believable, but you do want to be thought of as some sexual powerhouse with more great grandchildren than he can count .... So you are bragging that you are the sire of a clan of sluts who become grandmas in their 30s.

You are in a bad way and should seek psychiatric assistance.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What the phuck is Gender Philosophy?

Post by Sculptor »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 5:49 am
Sculptor wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 12:17 pm
Phil8659 wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 10:07 am

You might be right, after all, having been married four times and accumulating, I cannot even recall how many grandchildren and great grandchildren, I am terrified of my pecker!

I am however very fortunate, my cat has a degree in psychology and, since she was spayed, she is impartial and gives me good advice.

Apparently, you do not understand people with very high I.Q.'s They end up either impotent, or satyrs. I am someone other husbands have actually brought their wives to me as some women do not know even how to climax.
Nothing you have said here excuses your bigotry and arrogance.
Why can't you just accept that other people are not the same as you?
After all what would the world be like if everyone had 3 failed marriages, and can't even keep count of their spawn?
Maybe LGBT people are going to save the planet by not spawning as many brats as you?
Another tender-hearted, empathetic, tolerant wokie...
You are contradicting yourself.
"Wokie" is meaningless, you just apply it liberally to people who think you are a stupid ****. Which is pretty much everyone except the MAGA morons, and pro-lifers.
:lol: :lol:
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: What the phuck is Gender Philosophy?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Sculptor wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 11:51 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 5:49 am
Sculptor wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 12:17 pm

Nothing you have said here excuses your bigotry and arrogance.
Why can't you just accept that other people are not the same as you?
After all what would the world be like if everyone had 3 failed marriages, and can't even keep count of their spawn?
Maybe LGBT people are going to save the planet by not spawning as many brats as you?
Another tender-hearted, empathetic, tolerant wokie...
You are contradicting yourself.
"Wokie" is meaningless, you just apply it liberally to people who think you are a stupid ****. Which is pretty much everyone except the MAGA morons, and pro-lifers.
:lol: :lol:
I apply it to the the people it applies to you stupid ****. So-called 'pro-lifers' (anti-lifers) are just a different kind of ****. You are ALL morons and hypocrites. You just keep proving my point with everything you post. All that virtue-signalling when you are probably the nastiest arsehole on here. You aren't even genuinely anti-war or pro-justice.
ps I have no idea what a MAGA is and have no intention of bothering to google it.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What the phuck is Gender Philosophy?

Post by Sculptor »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 9:14 pm
Sculptor wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 11:51 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 5:49 am
Another tender-hearted, empathetic, tolerant wokie...
You are contradicting yourself.
"Wokie" is meaningless, you just apply it liberally to people who think you are a stupid ****. Which is pretty much everyone except the MAGA morons, and pro-lifers.
:lol: :lol:
I apply it to the the people it applies to you stupid ****. So-called 'pro-lifers' (anti-lifers) are just a different kind of ****. You are ALL morons and hypocrites. You just keep proving my point with everything you post. All that virtue-signalling when you are probably the nastiest arsehole on here. You aren't even genuinely anti-war or pro-justice.
ps I have no idea what a MAGA is and have no intention of bothering to google it.
What a sad pathetic little small minded desolate world you live in.
Have you tried antidepressants?
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: What the phuck is Gender Philosophy?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Sculptor wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 9:35 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 9:14 pm
Sculptor wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 11:51 am

You are contradicting yourself.
"Wokie" is meaningless, you just apply it liberally to people who think you are a stupid ****. Which is pretty much everyone except the MAGA morons, and pro-lifers.
:lol: :lol:
I apply it to the the people it applies to you stupid ****. So-called 'pro-lifers' (anti-lifers) are just a different kind of ****. You are ALL morons and hypocrites. You just keep proving my point with everything you post. All that virtue-signalling when you are probably the nastiest arsehole on here. You aren't even genuinely anti-war or pro-justice.
ps I have no idea what a MAGA is and have no intention of bothering to google it.
What a sad pathetic little small minded desolate world you live in.
Have you tried antidepressants?
Are you talking to yourself? You just can't help showing yourself up can you? You are the gift that just keeps giving :lol:
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: What the phuck is Gender Philosophy?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 11:02 am So you are bragging that you are the sire of a clan of sluts who become grandmas in their 30s.

Another woke hypocrite. So a woman who has a child when she's under twenty is automatically a 'slut'? Not misogynistic at all. Gotta love the woke. At least they keep us entertained.
My own 3X great grandmother was 13 and married off to a 37 year old man in Limerick, Ireland (I went through a stage of dabbling in family genealogy). And no, that wasn't 'normal' for the time either. Most people actually got married in their twenties back then, contrary to what people think. She had her first (of many) children at 14, so it certainly wasn't 'platonic'. I suppose that makes her a 'slut'. What was 'he'? I have no idea what the circumstances would have been, although records can be unreliable from that far back, and it was all written in long-hand which can be hard to read. Perhaps she was a couple of years older than that, but still very young. When you go into genealogy it only takes a very short time to realise that women have been bringing up children on their own for as long as they have been having children. The 'nuclear family' is a myth.
Phil8659
Posts: 396
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:50 am
Contact:

Re: What the phuck is Gender Philosophy?

Post by Phil8659 »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 12:46 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 11:02 am So you are bragging that you are the sire of a clan of sluts who become grandmas in their 30s.

Another woke hypocrite. So a woman who has a child when she's under twenty is automatically a 'slut'? Not misogynistic at all. Gotta love the woke. At least they keep us entertained.
My own 3X great grandmother was 13 and married off to a 37 year old man in Limerick, Ireland (I went through a stage of dabbling in family genealogy). And no, that wasn't 'normal' for the time either. Most people actually got married in their twenties back then, contrary to what people think. She had her first (of many) children at 14, so it certainly wasn't 'platonic'. I suppose that makes her a 'slut'. What was 'he'? I have no idea what the circumstances would have been, although records can be unreliable from that far back, and it was all written in long-hand which can be hard to read. Perhaps she was a couple of years older than that, but still very young. When you go into genealogy it only takes a very short time to realise that women have been bringing up children on their own for as long as they have been having children. The 'nuclear family' is a myth.
Now you are calling the kettle black. I raised my last son, his brother died of abuse at his mother's hand, in another state. And she was never charged because after all, bruises all over his face, does not prove that anyone did it. Why bother, when people can work that out among themselves? The state can use it to take children, but only take them when it is profitable for an interesting party with money.

He is the same age as one of my grandson's.
You seem to think a lot of men don't have to raise children, some men do exactly what women do, take the the children and then sue the woman for child support. That is being a real dick.
My first two children came, one just before military service, and the other during. She demanded that I leave the service, while I was still in basic, which she demanded that I join, I told her, I gave my word and I will not beak it, and then just stopped writing. She would just go to my parents and brag about who she slept with, and my parents did not want to hurt my feelings by letting me know.
That was a wonderful situation. The divorce went under Madam X, uncontested, yet the state decided that such women are are more fit to raise the children because after all, women are more fit mother's, whatever the hell that means. I could not fight it, I was in the service of a country at war. I just had to pay the bills, because after all, the man is more fit to pay.
However, you have bad taste arguing with a moron with no ethical code, nor even civil manners. You must be drawn to men you know would not even think twice about anything.
My first wife had deep issues I learnt after marriage, sado-masochism (now that is odd, this spelling app wants it to be soda-masochism, which is pretty funny), something I cannot even wrap my brain around.You never consider, how many men in the service of their country, who cannot even fight the absurd divorce laws because its his a job to serve, and a woman's job to be served? you don't approach that real fact at all. many women have come to practice it as an art, taking the money and running to find another mark, just because of state laws.

How has it come to be, that a marriage, by mutual agreement gives any country any right at all to turn a free will agreement into the slavery of the other? especially, the one who can pay the lawyers the most money? When does a free will agreement give anyone the right to impose any form of slavery upon the other? Why not, the party who breaks their word, pays for it and just leave it at that, instead of all this bull shit about gender equality, is simply the problem every one has, of respecting the word they original gave?
Language is the currency expressed in grammar systems whereby social behavior is exchanged: Now the origins of that idea go way back in history and complies with the biologically defined job of a mind you cannot seem to comprehend. If you cannot keep your word, you pay. Why does everyone demand that it is fair play to play the shell game with words? You just don't even consider it.

Well you can use the absurd expression of gender equality ignoring the reality that a dick is not pussy, and vice versa to hide the real fact, nobody can make gender equal at all. The lot of you are just out of your fucking minds.

Now you want the really scary version, King Solomon. As children are produced through a free will agreement, if people think breaking their word is an option, then divide the child as well.
You would be amazed at how many people sue for money over child support because all they want is their own support as having a job is just so much work.

You do not argue in terms of physical and biological fact, or any concept of ethics, the job of a mind, but simply play a shell game with words, because you like the shell game. The only possible ethical concern, but a mind, as all a mind can do, is read, process, and write, the only thing it can do is learn, understand, and express, in grammar systems. But it is easier to play a child's shell game. I don't have to tell you to go to hell, because the lot of you have created hell on earth and enjoy it. Look at yourself, you prefer to argue with a person who can only use words like an ape-man wielding a club than one who puts stress on your mind to learn. How much different is that of Madam X? The whore of Babylon refers to Man, not to a gender. You whore the word, like everyone else, because you enjoy it. You cannot even recognize the art of psycho-linguistics.

This reminds me of a habit my niece has, of going to the store, and then checking the expiration date after she has paid and left the store, a virtual habit. When asked why don't she just read the label at the store since one can just read it there. And then she says, why read it when I don't have to? So, you mean you were taught to read, but why bother? Okay.

Now you take abortion laws, under the fake excuse of right to life. How many children will be born physically and mentally handicapped and how many just smart enough for cannon fodder. My mother was forced to have my youngest sister, even though my mother had rubella at the time. And who was protecting my sister, born with mental and physical defects, no one she managed as well as she could defects and all till she died, and whose daughter because of mental and physical defects and could not support herself, I do, none of her brothers, or sisters, or the state will. Or those born to parents who are unable to afford to raise them, whose right to life is actually violated because some liar claims to have the authority over any one else bodies. Or is it a biological fact, each person is the sole beneficiary of their own body for good or bad? How can you claim that the rights of children means you can enslave the parent of that very same child? That you can enslave the general population, tax them, for people who cannot rightfully support themselves? Just bull shit players of the shell game with words. How can you the right to life gives you the right to take it, but not a woman of the child of her own body?

And another issue. A state claims a person too disabled to support themselves, even though a birth defect, yet that very same person has a right to every cent a possible spouse makes and more, because she has a right to what that person actually worked for? After all, she is incapable of earning any support but earns, by marriage the actual wages, and more, of a person who rightfully had to work for everything?
Which is it, you have a right to your earnings, and you don't. That a 50 50 relationship actually means money and has nothing to do with earning anything.
Bull shit. Yes, I have issues all right, having to live in a social structure of liars, cheats, and thieves, because the lie is the law. I actually go to sleep every night hoping I do not have to wake up to this world of bull shit, that death is actually a better life than this.
Last edited by Phil8659 on Sun Jul 10, 2022 5:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: What the phuck is Gender Philosophy?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Phil8659 wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 4:21 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 12:46 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 11:02 am So you are bragging that you are the sire of a clan of sluts who become grandmas in their 30s.

Another woke hypocrite. So a woman who has a child when she's under twenty is automatically a 'slut'? Not misogynistic at all. Gotta love the woke. At least they keep us entertained.
My own 3X great grandmother was 13 and married off to a 37 year old man in Limerick, Ireland (I went through a stage of dabbling in family genealogy). And no, that wasn't 'normal' for the time either. Most people actually got married in their twenties back then, contrary to what people think. She had her first (of many) children at 14, so it certainly wasn't 'platonic'. I suppose that makes her a 'slut'. What was 'he'? I have no idea what the circumstances would have been, although records can be unreliable from that far back, and it was all written in long-hand which can be hard to read. Perhaps she was a couple of years older than that, but still very young. When you go into genealogy it only takes a very short time to realise that women have been bringing up children on their own for as long as they have been having children. The 'nuclear family' is a myth.
Now you are calling the kettle black. I raised my last son, his brother died of abuse at his mother's hand, in another state. And she was never charged because after all, bruises all over his face, does not prove that anyone did it. Why bother, when people can work that out among themselves? The state can use it to take children, but only take them when it is profitable for an interesting party with money.

He is the same age as one of my grandson's.
You seem to think a lot of men don't have to raise children, some men do exactly what women do, take the the children and then sue the woman for child support. That is being a real dick.
My first two children came, one just before military service, and the other during. She demanded that I leave the service, while I was still in basic, which she demanded that I join, I told her, I gave my word and I will not beak it, and then just stopped writing. She would just go to my parents and brag about who she slept with, and my parents did not want to hurt my feelings by letting me know.
That was a wonderful situation. The divorce went under Madam X, uncontested, yet the state decided that such women are are more fit to raise the children because after all, women are more fit mother's, whatever the hell that means. I could not fight it, I was in the service of a country at war. I just had to pay the bills, because after all, the man is more fit to pay.
However, you have bad taste arguing with a moron with no ethical code, nor even civil manners. You must be drawn to men you know would not even think twice about anything.
My first wife had deep issues I learnt after marriage, sado-masochism (now that is odd, this spelling app wants it to be soda-masochism, which is pretty funny), something I cannot even wrap my brain around.You never consider, how many men in the service of their country, who cannot even fight the absurd divorce laws because its his a job to serve, and a woman's job to be served? you don't approach that real fact at all. many women have come to practice it as an art, taking the money and running to find another mark, just because of state laws.

How has it come to be, that a marriage, by mutual agreement gives any country any right at all to turn a free will agreement into the slavery of the other? especially, the one who can pay the lawyers the most money? When does a free will agreement give anyone the right to impose any form of slavery upon the other? Why not, the party who breaks their word, pays for it and just leave it at that, instead of all this bull shit about gender equality, is simply the problem every one has, of respecting the word they original gave?
Language is the currency expressed in grammar systems whereby social behavior is exchanged: Now the origins of that idea go way back in history and complies with the biologically defined job of a mind you cannot seem to comprehend. If you cannot keep your word, you pay. Why does everyone demand that it is fair play to play the shell game with words? You just don't even consider it.

Well you can use the absurd expression of gender equality ignoring the reality that a dick is not pussy, and vice versa to hide the real fact, nobody can make gender equal at all. The lot of you are just out of your fucking minds.

Now you want the really scary version, King Solomon. As children are produced through a free will agreement, if people think breaking their word is an option, then divide the child as well.
You would be amazed at how many people sue for money over child support because all they want is their own support as having a job is just so much work.

You do not argue in terms of physical and biological fact, or any concept of ethics, the job of a mind, but simply play a shell game with words, because you like the shell game. The only possible ethical concern, but a mind, as all a mind can do, is read, process, and write, the only thing it can do is learn, understand, and express, in grammar systems. But it is easier to play a child's shell game. I don't have to tell you to go to hell, because the lot of you have created hell on earth and enjoy it. Look at yourself, you prefer to argue with a person who can only use words like an ape-man wielding a club than one who puts stress on your mind to learn. How much different is that of Madam X? The whore of Babylon refers to Man, not to a gender. You whore the word, like everyone else, because you enjoy it. You cannot even recognize the art of psycho-linguistics.

This reminds me of a habit my niece has, of going to the store, and then checking the expiration date after she has paid and left the store, a virtual habit. When asked why don't she just read the label at the store since one can just read it there. And then she says, why read it when I don't have to? So, you mean you were taught to read, but why bother? Okay.

Now you take abortion laws, under the fake excuse of right to life. How many children will be born physically and mentally handicapped and how many just smart enough for cannon fodder. My mother was forced to have my youngest sister, even though my mother had rubella at the time. And who was protecting my sister, born with mental and physical defects, no one she managed as well as she could defects and all till she died, and whose daughter because of mental and physical defects and could not support herself, I do, none of her brothers, or sisters, or the state will. Or those born to parents who are unable to afford to raise them, whose right to life is actually violated because some liar claims to have the authority over any one else bodies. Or is it a biological fact, each person is the sole beneficiary of their own body for good or bad? How can you claim that the rights of children means you can enslave the parent of that very same child? That you can enslave the general population, tax them, for people who cannot rightfully support themselves? Just bull shit players of the shell game with words. How can you the right to life gives you the right to take it, but not a woman of the child of her own body?

And another issue. A state claims a person too disabled to support themselves, even though a birth defect, yet that very same person has a right to every cent a possible spouse makes and more, because she has a right to what that person actually worked for? After all, she is incapable of earning any support but earns, by marriage the actual wages, and more, of a person who rightfully had to work for everything?
Which is it, you have a right to your earnings, and you don't. That a 50 50 relationship actually means money and has nothing to do with earning anything.
Bull shit. Yes, I have issues all right, having to live in a social structure of liars, cheats, and thieves, because the lie is the law.
I didn't really need your life story. And if she murdered your son then she should be rotting in prison. What does any of that have to do with anything I've written? Humans are complex, but one fact remains constant--it's only women who have babies. Where did I say that all women are even capable of giving a child everything it needs? All the more reason for safe, accessible abortion.
Phil8659
Posts: 396
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:50 am
Contact:

Re: What the phuck is Gender Philosophy?

Post by Phil8659 »

Really? that is the depth of your thoughts. Thankfully, no one yet has drowned in dew.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: What the phuck is Gender Philosophy?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Phil8659 wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 5:48 am Really? that is the depth of your thoughts. Thankfully, no one yet has drowned in dew.
You should learn from that. 'More words' doesn't necessarily equate to 'more meaning'.
Last edited by vegetariantaxidermy on Sun Jul 10, 2022 6:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Phil8659
Posts: 396
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:50 am
Contact:

Re: What the phuck is Gender Philosophy?

Post by Phil8659 »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 5:59 am
Phil8659 wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 5:48 am Really? that is the depth of your thoughts. Thankfully, no one yet has drowned in dew.
You should learn from that. 'More words' doesn't necessarily equate as 'more meaning'.
I have, you have taught me how severe aqua-phobia really is. Some people even imagine that they are swimming when they have barely got their feet wet.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What the phuck is Gender Philosophy?

Post by Age »

Phil8659 wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 4:21 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 12:46 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 11:02 am So you are bragging that you are the sire of a clan of sluts who become grandmas in their 30s.

Another woke hypocrite. So a woman who has a child when she's under twenty is automatically a 'slut'? Not misogynistic at all. Gotta love the woke. At least they keep us entertained.
My own 3X great grandmother was 13 and married off to a 37 year old man in Limerick, Ireland (I went through a stage of dabbling in family genealogy). And no, that wasn't 'normal' for the time either. Most people actually got married in their twenties back then, contrary to what people think. She had her first (of many) children at 14, so it certainly wasn't 'platonic'. I suppose that makes her a 'slut'. What was 'he'? I have no idea what the circumstances would have been, although records can be unreliable from that far back, and it was all written in long-hand which can be hard to read. Perhaps she was a couple of years older than that, but still very young. When you go into genealogy it only takes a very short time to realise that women have been bringing up children on their own for as long as they have been having children. The 'nuclear family' is a myth.
Now you are calling the kettle black. I raised my last son, his brother died of abuse at his mother's hand, in another state. And she was never charged because after all, bruises all over his face, does not prove that anyone did it. Why bother, when people can work that out among themselves? The state can use it to take children, but only take them when it is profitable for an interesting party with money.

He is the same age as one of my grandson's.
You seem to think a lot of men don't have to raise children, some men do exactly what women do, take the the children and then sue the woman for child support. That is being a real dick.
My first two children came, one just before military service, and the other during. She demanded that I leave the service, while I was still in basic, which she demanded that I join, I told her, I gave my word and I will not beak it, and then just stopped writing. She would just go to my parents and brag about who she slept with, and my parents did not want to hurt my feelings by letting me know.
That was a wonderful situation. The divorce went under Madam X, uncontested, yet the state decided that such women are are more fit to raise the children because after all, women are more fit mother's, whatever the hell that means. I could not fight it, I was in the service of a country at war. I just had to pay the bills, because after all, the man is more fit to pay.
However, you have bad taste arguing with a moron with no ethical code, nor even civil manners. You must be drawn to men you know would not even think twice about anything.
My first wife had deep issues I learnt after marriage, sado-masochism (now that is odd, this spelling app wants it to be soda-masochism, which is pretty funny), something I cannot even wrap my brain around.You never consider, how many men in the service of their country, who cannot even fight the absurd divorce laws because its his a job to serve, and a woman's job to be served? you don't approach that real fact at all. many women have come to practice it as an art, taking the money and running to find another mark, just because of state laws.

How has it come to be, that a marriage, by mutual agreement gives any country any right at all to turn a free will agreement into the slavery of the other? especially, the one who can pay the lawyers the most money? When does a free will agreement give anyone the right to impose any form of slavery upon the other? Why not, the party who breaks their word, pays for it and just leave it at that, instead of all this bull shit about gender equality, is simply the problem every one has, of respecting the word they original gave?
Language is the currency expressed in grammar systems whereby social behavior is exchanged: Now the origins of that idea go way back in history and complies with the biologically defined job of a mind you cannot seem to comprehend. If you cannot keep your word, you pay. Why does everyone demand that it is fair play to play the shell game with words? You just don't even consider it.

Well you can use the absurd expression of gender equality ignoring the reality that a dick is not pussy, and vice versa to hide the real fact, nobody can make gender equal at all. The lot of you are just out of your fucking minds.

Now you want the really scary version, King Solomon. As children are produced through a free will agreement, if people think breaking their word is an option, then divide the child as well.
You would be amazed at how many people sue for money over child support because all they want is their own support as having a job is just so much work.

You do not argue in terms of physical and biological fact, or any concept of ethics, the job of a mind, but simply play a shell game with words, because you like the shell game. The only possible ethical concern, but a mind, as all a mind can do, is read, process, and write, the only thing it can do is learn, understand, and express, in grammar systems. But it is easier to play a child's shell game. I don't have to tell you to go to hell, because the lot of you have created hell on earth and enjoy it. Look at yourself, you prefer to argue with a person who can only use words like an ape-man wielding a club than one who puts stress on your mind to learn. How much different is that of Madam X? The whore of Babylon refers to Man, not to a gender. You whore the word, like everyone else, because you enjoy it. You cannot even recognize the art of psycho-linguistics.

This reminds me of a habit my niece has, of going to the store, and then checking the expiration date after she has paid and left the store, a virtual habit. When asked why don't she just read the label at the store since one can just read it there. And then she says, why read it when I don't have to? So, you mean you were taught to read, but why bother? Okay.
So many things to unpack here:

1. When you say she checks the expiration date 'after' she has left the store, do you mean as soon as she is outside she then takes every item and checks their expiration date? Or, by 'after' do you mean after the item has been sitting in the cupboard or the fridge, for a while, she then checks the expiration date, just to make sure that the item has not yet expired? Or, do you mean at some other particular time?

2. Do you read EVERY expiration date on EVERY item BEFORE you place it into your shopping cart?

3. Were you taught to read, (or was this something else that was, supposedly, self-taught), either way do you read EVERY word that comes before you? If no, then WHY NOT? If yes, then are you SURE?

4. You learnt to read, so WHY do you NOT bother to read absolutely EVERY thing? OBVIOUSLY, you do NOT, and if you want to CLAIM you do, then please do. But what thee ACTUAL Truth is here is VERY OBVIOUS.
Phil8659 wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 4:21 am Now you take abortion laws, under the fake excuse of right to life. How many children will be born physically and mentally handicapped and how many just smart enough for cannon fodder. My mother was forced to have my youngest sister, even though my mother had rubella at the time. And who was protecting my sister, born with mental and physical defects, no one she managed as well as she could defects and all till she died, and whose daughter because of mental and physical defects and could not support herself, I do, none of her brothers, or sisters, or the state will. Or those born to parents who are unable to afford to raise them, whose right to life is actually violated because some liar claims to have the authority over any one else bodies. Or is it a biological fact, each person is the sole beneficiary of their own body for good or bad? How can you claim that the rights of children means you can enslave the parent of that very same child? That you can enslave the general population, tax them, for people who cannot rightfully support themselves? Just bull shit players of the shell game with words. How can you the right to life gives you the right to take it, but not a woman of the child of her own body?

And another issue. A state claims a person too disabled to support themselves, even though a birth defect, yet that very same person has a right to every cent a possible spouse makes and more, because she has a right to what that person actually worked for? After all, she is incapable of earning any support but earns, by marriage the actual wages, and more, of a person who rightfully had to work for everything?
Which is it, you have a right to your earnings, and you don't. That a 50 50 relationship actually means money and has nothing to do with earning anything.
Bull shit. Yes, I have issues all right, having to live in a social structure of liars, cheats, and thieves, because the lie is the law. I actually go to sleep every night hoping I do not have to wake up to this world of bull shit, that death is actually a better life than this.
ANOTHER one here who WISHES they were DEAD.
Post Reply