Could Hugh Hefner & Donald Trump Be Homosexual?

[Crucible]

A number of problems beginning with the first point. Who says it was better before women could vote and stand as equals before the law? By what possible litmus that is gender specific? Tell you what was so mesmerizing about what?

The feminists in Britain still routinely bring up an imagined patriarchy of lords. It's a nature that was intrinsic from the beginning- the leading anti-sufferagists were women themselves who lacked such imagination.

It doesn't seem to bother you that so many women from the beginning to now have argued against feminism, and it's because you are brainwashed:
If you can deny the reality of this in a world where women have more privilege than men, then it is not a mystery why those as yourself produce such a ridiculous revision of the past-
American women have never been oppressed.

Forced? I suppose that laws seem an act of force to a criminal.

Forced equality- as in, women get 50% even where they do not deserve it. And if it's more than 50%, then too bad for men.
What I find funny is that you, having been a lawyer, conveniently leaves out the sham of what 'equality' means in law, which differs from the constant lip service of what you all preach of 'equality'.

No, it literally wasn't for that. lain:

They did things that were flat out illegal which anyone else could've been jailed for. You see, contrary to what your feminist dogma tries to insinuate, women weren't being lynched for having contrary opinions.

 

[ok doser]

It really comes through in your repeated posts and threads about or to me...your signature line, etc.

As to the "Seek Christ" rep retread (another peculiar way to express disinterest)...all I or anyone can do for you is pray.

:yawn:

 

[Town Heretic]

It doesn't seem to bother you that so many women from the beginning to now have argued against feminism

Show me a poll where women today are arguing against equality under the law.

If you can deny the reality of this in a world where women have more privilege than men

I can deny a willful lie, which is what you just uttered here, having been schooled on women and poverty, violence, etc. prior.

American women have never been oppressed.

I suspect that were I to deny you rights before the law and place upon you the social and educational constrictions placed upon those women you'd feel differently about the treatment and what it constituted.

Forced equality- as in, women get 50% even where they do not deserve it.

Now you're back to divorce settlements. As I've also explained prior, there are two sorts of jurisdictions, equitable and community property. In the former a judge decides on the disposition of marital assets based upon length of marriage and contributions from both, along with fault. In community property it's just a split, but even that can be controlled by a binding agreement signed by the parties entering into the estate (a prenup).

What I find funny is that you, having been a lawyer, conveniently leaves out the sham of what 'equality' means in law, which differs from the constant lip service of what you all preach of 'equality'.

What I find tragic is your shell game efforts. Again, would you disabuse yourself of what you possess, or is your "sham" worth having?

They did things that were flat out illegal which anyone else could've been jailed for.

You're just making things up again. First it's they didn't fight. Then it's they didn't literally fight, and now it's the vague "things" posit. You asked if women were jailed. They were. And the peaceful protests of women asserting a natural right was against the law. No one else would have had cause to protest.

You see, contrary to what your feminist dogma tries to insinuate, women weren't being lynched for having contrary opinions.

Except that no one, least of all me, has suggested lynchings and mass violence, or insinuated it, though there was violence, especially in Europe. And even death, on rare occasion. You seemed to be looking for it as a litmus prior and I noted that it would be peculiar to expect men to respond violently to peaceful women of their own race and background peaceably seeking simple dignity and standing before the law.

There was violence on either side, but not in the main. If that sort of thing is your meat look up information on Kitty Marion and the Suffragette Fellowship. While most of the violence associated with the movement happened (on either side) across the pond, there were incidents here. Some approached it with a hostility to rival your own, if with a complaint that you lack.

 

[Nick M]

Show me a poll where women today are arguing against equality under the law.

Uh, right here. Most people favor not promoting(using the term generically) on merit, but instead on race or gender. Gender over race, according to gallup.

Black women and Hispanic women are more likely than white women to support affirmative action for women, 81% versus 67%, respectively.

67% is still a strong number. The 33% are the women that don't vote for a woman because she is a woman.

 

[Town Heretic]

Uh, right here. Most people favor not promoting(using the term generically) on merit, but instead on race or gender. Gender over race, according to gallup.

That's not what the polling says, Nick. Believing more is needed isn't arguing for a divestment of right.

The 33% are the women that don't vote for a woman because she is a woman.

Now that's a sad note worth speaking to, the sort of cultural indoctrination that would result in people either thinking less or more of a candidate because of gender. I suspect it's largely fueled by an aging generation or two.

 

[Nick M]

Affirmative action is racist and sexist, and most support it, including women.

 

[Town Heretic]

Affirmative action is racist and sexist, and most support it, including women.

I'm not a fan of it, though I understand the argument made of its necessity in breaking down social and economic barriers upheld by tradition and bias. I think enforcement of the laws against that bias are sufficient. But that's a philosophical debate and off the point I'm making against Cruc's angry trolling.

The polling you advanced to advance this particular argument wasn't, in fact, women believing in the divestment of right or arguing for it. Rather, it was some women and men believing that more is needed to counteract the generational institutionalization of gender bias and expectation. The second point was closer to my own, the disturbing note among a not inconsiderable number of women (and men) that women are less capable of leadership by virtue of their sex. That speaks to a cultural indoctrination of some intensity and so my interest in seeing how that plays out, generationally. It is a notion that has been dying out, if more slowly here than in Europe, where any number of strong, national leaders have broken through that ceiling (and without affirmative action).

 

[Crucible]

Show me a poll where women today are arguing against equality under the law.

There you go thinking there's a poll for everything
Why don't you try looking up all the women against feminism.

I can deny a willful lie, which is what you just uttered here, having been schooled on women and poverty, violence, etc. prior.

You can't school anyone when your bias is based in utter fantasy. Women's poverty has always been relatively low compared to men or any ethnic group, period. Men are dragged through Hell whether they are guilty or not by claims of domestic 'assault'- which by the letter of your benevolent law is throwing a dust speck at someone.

You're all crooks who send innocent people to jail- I mean, you can defend home wrecking women all you want, but I don't see anyone giving one damn about the 30 something percent of men who are assaulted in their homes. If something occurs to where it's not in their interest to stay there, there are no support systems for them.


To defend feminism is insanity- it's a complete mockery to men's dignity. Look at those like Anna who act the way they do, and you defend it. Male supporters are degenerates, plain and simple- they are as ridiculous as the women therein themselves, you see, I don't go about you all any different than a bobble headed liberal female.

 

[MrDante]

38% of defendants in cases involving domestic abuse are women, and your statistics only apply to the sheltered homeless.

From the The 2015 Annual Homeless Assessment Report Page 12

"Nearly 7 in 10 (69%) people experiencing
homelessness were staying in sheltered
locations, and 31 percent were unsheltered."

Nearly two-thirds of people experiencing
homelessness (64% or 358,422 people) were
individuals. Of those individuals, 205,616 were
staying in emergency shelters or transitional
housing programs and 152,806 were counted
in unsheltered locations.

The remaining 36 percent, or 206,286 people,
were people in homeless families with
children. Most (185,824 people) were sheltered,
while only 20,462 people in families with
children were counted in unsheltered locations
such as under bridges, in cars, or in abandoned
buildings."

 

[ok doser]

Affirmative action is racist and sexist

i could bang out a long paragraph of crap in response to this

or i could just post...

:thumb:

 

[Angel4Truth]

Affirmative action is racist and sexist, and most support it, including women.

:thumb:

 

[Town Heretic]

There you go thinking there's a poll for everything

These days there nearly is, but when you make a claim about women in the present you need something more than a willingness to declare it if you mean for the claim to be taken seriously.

Why don't you try looking up all the women against feminism.

That's you trying to muddle things again. I've been speaking to right. You're trying to conflate the desire and support for equality before the law with the philosophy that drove the larger social acceptance. A woman can be opposed to a perception of modern feminism without agreeing with misogynists who would be happy to remove her voting rights, property rights, and ability to compete in the workforce.

You can't school anyone when your bias is based in utter fantasy.

Are you trying to peg the irony meter?

Women's poverty has always been relatively low compared to men or any ethnic group, period.

Objectively, demonstrably at odds with the data both historically and recently.

According to data released from the latest Census:

"Women (13.4 percent) were 35 percent more likely than men (9.9 percent) to live in poverty in 2015. Women were also more likely than men to be in extreme poverty: 6.1 percent of women versus 4.4 percent of men lived in extreme poverty in 2015"

Men are dragged through Hell whether they are guilty or not by claims of domestic 'assault'- which by the letter of your benevolent law is throwing a dust speck at someone.

You've tried that too and been rebutted. The vast majority of people who seek and more who receive judicial relief are, in fact, the victims of domestic violence.

You're all crooks who send innocent people to jail

You're demented and controlled by anger or the impulse to stir and mislead.

- I mean, you can defend home wrecking women all you want, but I don't see anyone giving one damn about the 30 something percent of men who are assaulted in their homes. If something occurs to where it's not in their interest to stay there, there are no support systems for them.

Wrong on every count.

To defend feminism is insanity

No, it isn't, depending on what part of the tent we're speaking to, though I haven't been defending feminism. I've been defending right and equality before the law.

it's a complete mockery to men's dignity.

Only the weakest, most fearful sort of man would find protecting the dignity of women an offense against his own.

Look at those like Anna who act the way they do, and you defend it.

Look at you generalizing some dreaded action you can neither directly note or rationally condemn.

Male supporters are degenerates, plain and simple- they are as ridiculous as the women therein themselves, you see, I don't go about you all any different than a bobble headed liberal female.

The want of logic in that is only surpassed by the poverty of its construction.

 

[Crucible]

That's you trying to muddle things again. I've been speaking to right. You're trying to conflate the desire and support for equality before the law with the philosophy that drove the larger social acceptance. A woman can be opposed to a perception of modern feminism without agreeing with misogynists who would be happy to remove her voting rights, property rights, and ability to compete in the workforce.

I never said I believed women shouldn't vote, I said I believed women voting is only for the sole purpose of having the right thereof and doesn't actually do anything for their interests- elections are decided ultimately by men, which is why certain countries have put women in office for the sheer sake of 'equality'.

Nothing quite shows something to be fantasy than outright forcing things to make the fantasy appear real :AMR:
And that is why I deem feminism a mental illness.

According to data released from the latest Census:

[FONT=&]"Women (13.4 percent) were 35 percent more likely than men (9.9 percent) to live in poverty in 2015. Women were also more likely than men to be in extreme poverty: 6.1 percent of women versus 4.4 percent of men lived in extreme poverty in 2015"
[/FONT]

Then why do women only represent 5% of the homeless?
They aren't living in 'poverty', they are living on welfare- enjoying the myriads of benefits you prop them up with while they raise delinquents and make every man rue being involved with them

The vast majority of people who seek and more who receive judicial relief are, in fact, the victims of domestic violence.

What a sham statistic, seriously
Affirmative action has made all men walk a ridiculous tightrope, in which they can find their self out of a house and home just by getting involved with a manipulative woman. If you think that doesn't account for a myriad of homeless men right now, which you probably deny, then you really are just a fool.

Only the weakest, most fearful sort of man would find protecting the dignity of women an offense against his own.

I'm all for protecting those who need protection and respect it. You all's problem is that you're continuing to fortify a cast iron wall and throwing men under the bus. And all the while women on the other side are dropping bricks from the top.

It's one big joke- the Bible doesn't convince you, so neither will I.
I'm done with this conversation for a while, I'm not a misogynist, you all are just prisoners to your own moral fraud.

 

[MrDante]

Then why do women only represent 5% of the homeless?

They don't. 5% is just a number you made up.


Women over the age of 21 account for 28% of all homeless individuals. An additional 11% of all homeless individuals are women and girls under the age of 21.
- HUD 2015 Annual Homeless Assessment Report

 

[Crucible]

They don't. 5% is just a number you made up.


Women over the age of 21 account for 28% of all homeless individuals. An additional 11% of all homeless individuals are women and girls under the age of 21.
- HUD 2015 Annual Homeless Assessment Report

It's not a number I made up, you're just terrible at deducing statistics. You choose to see whatever fits into your feminism, despite what the most accurate consensus actually is.

Not that a person would even need a statistic to know yours as complete nonsense.
Go to any city and see how many homeless women you see on the street. 1 in every 4 is plain laughable, you self deluded moron. 1 and 20 is right on the mark :wave2:

 

[Town Heretic]

I never said I believed women shouldn't vote

You've forgotten part of your own objection then, because you had a lot to say about it and none of that was in support. In any event, either you support equality before the law, regardless of gender, or you don't.

And that is why I deem feminism a mental illness.

And you're about as qualified to render a medical opinion as you are a legal one.

Then why do women only represent 5% of the homeless?

In part because your statistic isn't one, but beyond that the disparity that does exist can be partially set at the feet of this fact, that the overwhelming majority of the poor aren't homeless. In 2015 there were around 41 million living below the poverty line, by census. According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, there were around a half million homeless. Meaning that roughly 40.5 of all people living in poverty are still sheltered, either in government housing or by some other arrangement.

12.2% of men and 14.8% of women lived in poverty in 2015. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau; Income and Poverty in the United States, p. 13)

No idea where you're getting your 5%. According to the Alliance, the sheltered homeless broke down by gender: 62.3% male to 37.7% female.

They aren't living in 'poverty', they are living on welfare- enjoying the myriads of benefits

That's just the asinine raving of someone who hasn't had any experience with subsistence living and whose exposure to poverty is mostly in his noggin.

Affirmative action has made all men walk a ridiculous tightrope, in which they can find their self out of a house and home just by getting involved with a manipulative woman. If you think that doesn't account for a myriad of homeless men right now, which you probably deny, then you really are just a fool.

If by fool you mean I possess more than some seething pit of nonsense fueled ire and anecdotal distortion, sure. Otherwise, wipe your nose.

I'm all for protecting those who need protection and respect it.

Another subjective litmus that you, with that spine altering chip on your shoulder, get to decide. Right.

It's one big joke- the Bible doesn't convince you, so neither will I.

What you don't appear to know about the Bible is in like with what you don't appear to know about nearly any topic you've taken the pot stirring relationship to, which isn't particularly surprising.

I'm done with this conversation for a while

Super.

I'm not a misogynist

In exactly the same demonstrable sense that the woman who called Obama's wife "monkey face" before declaring herself free of racism wasn't a racist.

, you all are just prisoners to your own moral fraud.

You're just a kid with too much time on his hands who doesn't appear to be using any of it for education.

 

[Crucible]

You've forgotten part of your own objection then, because you had a lot to say about it and none of that was in support. In any event, either you support equality before the law, regardless of gender, or you don't.

I don't support things that exist only to produce an illusion. Women voting makes little to no difference, and I'm sure no woman wants to hear that but their offense is hypocritical as far as I'm concerned- if thy had their way, men would be under a permanent inquisition.

And you're about as qualified to render a medical opinion as you are a legal one.

Insisting on lies and fantasy over reality is a trademark of multiple mental illnesses.

In part because your statistic isn't one

It is one, it is one that considered several things, such as women being temporarily without residence whether they were abused or in fact abused their husband.

12.2% of men and 14.8% of women lived in poverty in 2015. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau; Income and Poverty in the United States, p. 13)

I don't care :idunno:

That's just the asinine raving of someone who hasn't had any experience with subsistence living and whose exposure to poverty is mostly in his noggin.

I lived on the street for the most part of two years, have little family, and was born and raised in the ghetto dude 0 when I wasn't in group homes and foster families.
You see, I don't whine about it has opened my eyes to the nonsense society perpetuates on a great deal of things. I haven't lived in a ball like you all, I've seen it all firsthand.

You all don't know a single thing about 'poverty'. The homeless are in poverty- don't insult that reality with counting poverty as not having internet access :AMR:

 

[Town Heretic]

Insisting on lies and fantasy over reality is a trademark of multiple mental illnesses.

From your lips to your therapist's ears.

It is one, it is one that considered several things, such as women being temporarily without residence whether they were abused or in fact abused their husband.

You say that, but I cited source and authority. So you're either a) demonstrably wrong or b) cherry picked a statistic from an unnamed source that, without qualification, reduced the consideration to a series of particulars that in no way demonstrated the larger rule. So, wrong or dishonest, you have a problem.

I literally cite the contrary statistic on the actual breakdown of poverty between genders and:

I don't care :idunno:

Terrific. You don't care about the truth. Because that was an objective rebuttal of your point. Thanks for the honest note about your indifferent dishonesty.

I lived on the street for the most part of two years, have little family, and was born and raised in the ghetto dude when I wasn't in group homes and foster families.

So your distortions were born of a personal anecdotal grudge? It's possible, but it doesn't excuse your holding onto that in the face of contrary fact...or maybe it's just a further argument for considerable education on your part.

You see, I don't whine about it has opened my eyes to the nonsense society perpetuates on a great deal of things. I haven't lived in a ball like you all, I've seen it all firsthand.

Lived in a ball? I was brought up in a privileged household. Until I was a young adult I never wanted for much, though I worked from a young age in family businesses. As an teenager I began to question a number of institutionalized notions my class was taught about the poor. Eventually I lived and worked among them in a rebellious period. I've gone to sleep hungry and worked menial jobs. I don't compare that time and experience with what I saw around me though, because I knew that at any moment I could escape it completely.

Eventually I went to law school and used that to fight among the poor, to protect them from predatory lenders and landlords and to defend women and children against animals with human faces. You don't know anything of value about my life. I have no idea what is true of yours. But the truth itself, on the point itself, is knowable and you have no excuse for propounding a miserable distortion.

 

[Crucible]

You say that, but I cited source and authority. So you're either a) demonstrably wrong or b) cherry picked a statistic from an unnamed source that, without qualification, reduced the consideration to a series of particulars that in no way demonstrated the larger rule. So, wrong or dishonest, you have a problem.

You simply presume too much from statistics is all. Statistics don't take into account anything other than numbers, there's a reason why you don't see 1 in 4 women on the street despite what your statistic states. That is not something 'anecdotal', it is rare to see a woman homeless period- the 1 and 20 figure (5%) is correct, deal with it.

Terrific. You don't care about the truth. Because that was an objective rebuttal of your point. Thanks for the honest note about your indifferent dishonesty.

It's not much more women than men to suppose it's due to anything of them being women. The fact that you all demonstrably care more about, and do more about, the women while calling other people misogynists for pointing it out is enough for me to *drumroll* not care.

Why should I care about a society that quacks morals but kicks according to what makes itself appear holy? None of those women are going to recognize it, they'll even come later to designate men as the problem if they weren't doing so already.
You'll support it, and the cycle continues.
I think you're all equally absurd, so unless you're a woman than guess what? I'm not 'sexist'

 

[quip]

They aren't living in 'poverty', they are living on welfare- enjoying the myriads of benefits you prop them up with .....

So?

When Trump bilks the system he claims he's just "being smart"; being "business savvy". Aren't these women just being Trump-savvy....wherefore all the hostility?