Nicely put point.Rortabend wrote:If you have to be a woman to be a feminist then I don't hold out much hope for the future of animal rights. Woof woof.
But until they can hold an AK I think they can whistle for them.
Nicely put point.Rortabend wrote:If you have to be a woman to be a feminist then I don't hold out much hope for the future of animal rights. Woof woof.
I like it too, but it doesn't "drive the point home" as well as all that. The parallel between women's equality and animal rights is not so close that what's true of one is true (mutatis mutandis) of the other, and it's possible to support gender equality without being a feminist. Just saying.Notvacka wrote:I love this comment; how it drives the point home perfectly, whilst being funny too. Wish I had written it myself.Rortabend wrote:If you have to be a woman to be a feminist then I don't hold out much hope for the future of animal rights. Woof woof.
This guy is demanding his rights.Arising_uk wrote:Nicely put point.Rortabend wrote:If you have to be a woman to be a feminist then I don't hold out much hope for the future of animal rights. Woof woof.
But until they can hold an AK I think they can whistle for them.
I've seen the films. I'm taking no chances.Arising_uk wrote: Just goes to show that seeing is not believing.
The way I read it, it's not just a parallell, and the point driven home is not only about feminism or animal rights, but goes much deeper. Neither does it depend on the closeness of the parallell. Some of the beauty and brilliance is lost if you have to explain it, but here goes:mickthinks wrote:I like it too, but it doesn't "drive the point home" as well as all that. The parallel between women's equality and animal rights is not so close that what's true of one is true (mutatis mutandis) of the other, and it's possible to support gender equality without being a feminist. Just saying.
Yours will be a one track mind as long as you let your genitals do all the thinking.Satyr wrote:Yes, men can be the most vehement feminists. It is their only way to get sexually noticed.
Just as I thought, yours will be a one track mind as long as you let your genitals do all the thinking. And your apparent obsession with phallic size just proves the point.Satyr wrote:Here's the thing, unlike you I do not dismiss physical evidence as being irrelevant.
When I see a rooster, I do not say it is just like a chicken, erasing millions of years of evolution history to fit my world-view to a post-modern lie.
Now maybe for you a penis is but a superficial appendage, in which case you'll have to explain why it is the only one, or if it not how you differentiate between yourself and a donkey.
Help me because I'm having trouble with it myself.
Now, to preempt the typical, let us say you baptize the difference as being too small to matter...in which case you;ll have to explain why this difference is too small, where you draw the line between an appearance being large enough or too small to be given consideration and why then science involves itself with quarks and SuperStrings...given that they are infinitesimally smaller than your "huge" penis.