Moron of the Day

[Crucible]

Pretending you have facts/events you can't reproduce/link to: fantasy.

So you deny that there has never been a time a woman has falsely accused a man of sexual assault?

Using that fantasy to demean and attack women at large: misogyny.

Calling actual events fantasy to defend the manipulations of feminists: TOOL

If the people wearing them just decided the Mrs. can't vote.

So everyone in history were misogynists. And as well, still the other 95% of mankind.
A whole lot pompous mouthing for such a relatively small group of people
Egalitarianism goes all the way back to ancient Rome. They didn't see your concept of feminism as legitimate, and neither did they a thousand years later.

If a profane pronoun is used instead of her name or job title.

Nah, even looking at woman makes one open to being called a misogynist.
~Eye rape~

So you're saying your misogyny began with an elementary school English teacher?

English: Xenophobic

Bad poetry Yahtzee!

Or Nazi :idunno:

 

[Town Heretic]

So you deny that there has never been a time a woman has falsely accused a man of sexual assault?

Of course not. Offering that generalized assertion as anything other than the exception though is an act of profound ignorance.

Calling actual events fantasy to defend the manipulations of feminists: TOOL

Not actually noting a verifiable event and attempting to build a house on sand: you.

So everyone in history were misogynists.

You didn't have to be a misogynist to live a couple of hundred years ago or better, but it helped. lain:

Again, your penchant for irrational generalizations is noted. If everyone was then how would anyone know? If most remained so how would anything change? I'll wait while you fail to consider that.

A whole lot pompous mouthing for such a relatively small group of people

Say what you will about Cruc (and why would you?) when it comes to offering unsupported insult he's aces.

Egalitarianism goes all the way back to ancient Rome. They didn't see your concept of feminism as legitimate, and neither did they a thousand years later.

Appeal to tradition? Slavery is right because it was the rule for most of history? That sort of thoughtless hokum? Let me know when you get to the R section of "How to Argue Using Logical Fallacies And Lose Every Time". oly:

Nah, even looking at woman makes one open to being called a misogynist.

No, but it can make you remarkably immature, depending on where you're looking and for how long. Well, not so much make as illustrate.

English: Xenophobic

Well, you can spell it. Now all you need is the working definition. To save time, reread endtojoy's Muslim post and your response.

Re: Bad poetry Yahtzee!

Or Nazi :idunno:

You can't teach your grammar to suck eggs...but that's close.

 

[Crucible]

Not actually noting a verifiable event

Why would I need to if everyone knows that it happens? Do I need to note a murder every time the subject of murder arises?

You didn't have to be a misogynist to live a couple of hundred years ago or better, but it helped. lain:

Is that why only 10% of society were 'feminists' before any of these 'liberties' were established?
It helped women to see their very sex as a privilege rather than pretend they were oppressed :chuckle:

Appeal to tradition? Slavery is right because it was the rule for most of history? That sort of thoughtless hokum? Let me know when you get to the R section of "How to Argue Using Logical Fallacies And Lose Every Time". oly:

Comparing women before suffrage to slavery is a fallacy. It's a fallacy that led all the way up to producing those as yourself, because society is stupid :wave2:

You can't teach your grammar to suck eggs...but that's close.

What got the feminist movement rolling was not voting or work compensation- it was birth control.
And so, eggs are misogynist :chuckle:

 

[Town Heretic]

Why would I need to if everyone knows that it happens?

Because you state it as though it was something that should move the discussion. Almost any exceptional thing that can happen does happen. Has nothing to do with the rule.

Do I need to note a murder every time the subject of murder arises?

No, but if you're intimating that women are responsible for most of them you'll need to support a "Women kill men!" with a bit more meat. And by a bit more I mean any.

Is that why only 10% of society were 'feminists' before any of these 'liberties' were established?

Lots of polling going on in Rome, was there? In 1776? [/sarcasm]

It helped women to see their very sex as a privilege rather than pretend they were oppressed

If you can't own property or vote you aren't pretending; If you can't see that you are.

Comparing women before suffrage to slavery is a fallacy.

I didn't say women were like slaves. I illustrated the problem you had utilizing an actual fallacy by parallel.

I'd say "Nice try," but that was almost as jarringly bad as when you tried the 1,500 mile bit in relation to the Irish and Jews.

What got the feminist movement rolling was not voting or work compensation- it was birth control.

You've already established that you don't understand history very well, but thanks. Suffrage was a long time before the pill.

And so, eggs are misogynist

Only if you're using eggs as a euphemism for women and you prefer yours whipped.

 

[Crucible]

Because you state it as though it was something that should move the discussion. Almost any exceptional thing that can happen does happen. Has nothing to do with the rule.

You think that men shouldn't take issue with a movement that daily walks up to men and accuses them of sexual assault, or portrays themselves as victims among men walking down the street?

You think that these things are fine, revealed by your omission- and by making insinuations of those who speak on it.

Lots of polling going on in Rome, was there? In 1776? [/sarcasm]

The early 1900's.

Also, the early American's didn't care one bit about feminist notions. I've seen this odd comparison of it to the ideologies of the Founding Fathers- I suppose it just goes with the pathological illness, trying to vindicate women where is none.

The fact of the matter is that America was definitively, by the patriots and everyone else, a white man's country. Not women, immigrants- none of that. It was fought for, built, and ran by white men.

If you can't own property or vote you aren't pretending; If you can't see that you are.

Why would a woman want to own property unless it's in divorcing their family?

Anyway, women couldn't own property because it wouldn't have been her money paying and keeping it.

Suffrage was a long time before the pill.

When less than 10% of women demanded it.
Feminism took off when birth control was introduced, when Margaret Sanger entered the seen and it was literally declared the 'liberation pill'.

All you know is the divinized rendition of history. Sort of like what they do with the Natives

 

[Town Heretic]

You think that men shouldn't take issue with a movement that daily walks up to men and accuses them of sexual assault, or portrays themselves as victims among men walking down the street?

I think issues should be particular and tangible, not overreaching and without same. If someone is accusing a man guilty of sexual assault of sexual assault it's perfectly reasonable and taking issue with it is astoundingly ignorant. Attempting to make every claim about sexual assault the byproduct of a movement and inherently false is equally so and objectively, demonstrably mistaken...except it's more willful than that.

You think that these things are fine, revealed by your omission- and by making insinuations of those who speak on it.

You're having enough trouble with your end of the conversation. I'll manage mine.

The early 1900's.

What about them? Sophisticated polling in play then, was there? But beyond that narrow historical window, what of it? Once most people thought all sorts of damnably stupid things.

Also, the early American's didn't care one bit about feminist notions.

Why so narrow? The world was similarly situated, on the whole.

The fact of the matter is that America was definitively, by the patriots and everyone else, a white man's country.

Absolutely. And largely racist for much of its history. You think that numbers are how you establish virtue? Remarkable.

Not women, immigrants- none of that. It was fought for, built, and ran by white men.

It was largely built on the backs of black men, economically and to some extent literally. It was also built by women. We've been over this and your ignorance of history, again, isn't a mystery to anyone who reads you for long.

Why would a woman want to own property unless it's in divorcing their family?

I believe you mean this sincerely, which goes to the depth and breadth of your bias. Why would a woman want to eat food? For the same reason you do. Women are people first. They want the same sort of rights and privileges you have for the same reasons anyone wants them, as an extension of who they are, of their freedom and autonomy.

Anyway, women couldn't own property because it wouldn't have been her money paying and keeping it.

As absurd as suggesting that blacks shouldn't have been liberated because they had no money to sustain themselves once that was accomplished.

When less than 10% of women demanded it.

Leaving off the whole polling problem and how you would execute it to be assured of an honest and uncoerced opinion, we held and hold certain truths to be unalienable. The rest is getting past bias to see that humanity is comprised of other voices and faces. We've struggled toward the fulfillment of that, but it was a great and noble struggle.

Feminism took off when birth control was introduced, when Margaret Sanger entered the seen and it was literally declared the 'liberation pill'.

Took off in what sense? The Suffrage Movement is the point of departure. Sexual liberation began with the pill (along with a number of social ills whose impact persists) but rights? Not so much.

All you know is the divinized rendition of history.

No, I know the authoritative sort, derived from years of study. You're a kid with a grudge and a Google.

Sort of like what they do with the Natives

I'd ask for particulars that would tell me what it is you think you know, but I know those aren't your strong points.

 

[Crucible]

It was largely built on the backs of black men

The amount of slaves were few and far between, and they were largely on plantations.

It was also built by women.

So, first they didn't have the right to work and own property, and now they all of a sudden built up the world

Industry was all men, hombre.

Women are people first.

First as people, then as men, and then lastly, women.
Well, I suppose whichever is convenient- 'men' when you want equality for some things, 'women' when you don't for others.

It's all about privilege, that's why they never used the word 'egalitarianism', which is blind to their sex.

As absurd as suggesting that blacks shouldn't have been liberated because they had no money to sustain themselves once that was accomplished.

Well, they were liberated from mud huts and brought Christianity, but that's too politically incorrect to even discuss with those as yourself :wave2:

I'd ask for particulars that would tell me what it is you think you know, but I know those aren't your strong points.

That a lot of them were savages who killed and maimed frontier men, kidnapped and raped women and children, or burned crops and food stores to starve people off?

Yeah, don't ask for particulars, it'll compromise your bias that white people were just scalp cutting devils killing them for mere sport.

 

[Town Heretic]

The amount of slaves were few and far between, and they were largely on plantations.

Ken M. You have to be Ken M.

Molasses to rum to slaves. You won't get the reference. Look it up.

So, first they didn't have the right to work and own property, and now they all of a sudden built up the world

The other trolling habit you have is making a statement that wasn't made by the other person when you don't have an answer.

For the heck of it, slaves didn't own anything, but they were fundamental to establishing a thriving economy. Slavery built the foundations and greased the wheels of many an empire.

First as people, then as men, and then lastly, women. Well, I suppose whichever is convenient- 'men' when you want equality for some things, 'women' when you don't for others.

I suppose that makes sense inside your head. Outside it's a train-wreck. Ken M. No question.

Well, they were liberated from mud huts and brought Christianity, but that's too politically incorrect to even discuss with those as yourself

So you're expanding your trolling into racist territory. Okay. That'll get some more mileage in there.

That a lot of them were savages who killed and maimed frontier men, kidnapped and raped women and children, or burned crops and food stores to starve people off?

Trail of tears. King George paying good money for "redskins" (scalps). Fifty pounds for male adult. Twenty five for female adults and twenty for kids under twelve. (source: http://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=lov) That sort of thing.

Yeah, don't ask for particulars,

Those aren't particulars. Those are declarations alleging particulars. Examples and authority, good, objectively observable data would constitute particulars.

Mostly I gave up on asking or expecting that some time ago, when it was apparent you lacked them, illustrated upon each challenge to produce. Now, again, I just think you're trolling. I literally can't believe you're serious any longer. It's not possible for anyone to be that under informed.

it'll compromise your bias that white people were just scalp cutting devils killing them for mere sport.

The other trolling habit you have is making a statement that wasn't made by the other person when you don't have an answer.

 

[ok doser]

(America) was largely built on the backs of black men, economically ...

define "largely"


certainly slavery was important to the economic success of the southern states, as evidenced by their inability to thrive without slavery

interestingly enough, the northern states thrived largely without slavery

and the northern states were the economic engine that counted, the industrial center that beat the crap out of the traitorous south

 

[Town Heretic]

define "largely"

certainly slavery was important to the economic success of the southern states, as evidenced by their inability to thrive without slavery

interestingly enough, the northern states thrived largely without slavery

and the northern states were the economic engine that counted, the industrial center that beat the crap out of the traitorous south

If you don't know enough history to understand triangular trade, the way New England profited from slavery for generations, the cycle of produce to Europe, etc. there's no real point in talking about it with you. The rest is you trolling. My opinion relating to the war and the mistaken commemoration of the Confederacy is long standing, as is the thinly disguised point of any post you make about or directed to me.

 

[ok doser]

If you don't know enough history to understand triangular trade, the way New England profited from slavery for generations, the cycle of produce to Europe, etc. there's no real point in talking about it with you.

i have a great deal of familiarity with it, thanks for asking

The rest is you trolling.

nah - that's just your out when you're caught trying to sell a lie



despite the triangular trade (which was "largely" in play, when? ) the economic and industrial engine of the north was built with a society that did not rely on the enslavement of one's fellow man

 

[Town Heretic]

i have a great deal of familiarity with it, thanks for asking

nah - that's just your out when you're caught trying to sell a lie

despite the triangular trade (which was "largely" in play, when? ) the economic and industrial engine of the north was built with a society that did not rely on the enslavement of one's fellow man

Go troll someone else. Two posts, two insults, no real argument. And your last sentence belies your profession in the first. You're just a guy who never learns and I'm just not interested.

:e4e:

 

[ok doser]

Go troll someone else.

settle down mary :chuckle:

Two posts, two insults, no real argument.

still waiting for you to define "largely"

i've given evidence that you're wrong, but goodness only knows how you define a word lately :chuckle:

 

[Town Heretic]

For anyone interested in the topic of slavery in the new world and the less historically noted profit by it, see: http://slavenorth.com/profits.htm

It begins:

The effects of the New England slave trade were momentous. It was one of the foundations of New England's economic structure; it created a wealthy class of slave-trading merchants, while the profits derived from this commerce stimulated cultural development and philanthropy. --Lorenzo Johnston Greene, �The Negro in Colonial New England, 1620-1776,� p.319.​

 

[ok doser]

For anyone interested in the topic of slavery in the new world and the less historically noted profit by it, see: http://slavenorth.com/profits.htm

It begins:

The effects of the New England slave trade were momentous. It was one of the foundations of New England's economic structure; it created a wealthy class of slave-trading merchants, while the profits derived from this commerce stimulated cultural development and philanthropy. --Lorenzo Johnston Greene, �The Negro in Colonial New England, 1620-1776,� p.319.​

"cultural development and philanthropy"


that's what you meant by "largely built on" ? :freak:

'cause i was thinking about the mines, the mills and the factories **







**props to gordo :thumb:

 

[Arthur Brain]

settle down mary :chuckle:



still waiting for you to define "largely"

i've given evidence that you're wrong, but goodness only knows how you define a word lately :chuckle:

Wow, just back from yet another ban for being an obsessive little dipstick and you're right back at it all over again.

Get. A. Life & stop spamming up the place with your boring obsessions.

:yawn:

 

[ok doser]

Wow, just back from yet another ban for being an obsessive little dipstick and you're right back at it all over again.

Get. A. Life & stop spamming up the place with your boring obsessions.

:yawn:

are you interested in discussing town's claim that "(America) was largely built on the backs of black men, economically ..."?

 

[Arthur Brain]

are you interested in discussing town's claim that "(America) was largely built on the backs of black men, economically ..."?

Not interested in discussing anything with you so crack on with it and pretend like you're engaging with TH for the interests of "debate". Your act went a long time ago and here's to the next time you flame out like a loon and get given yet another boot. You are just too boring for words. Have fun trolling in the meantime.

:e4e:

 

[ok doser]

Not interested in discussing anything with you ...(55 more words deleted)

and yet you ramble on


fascinating


do you have any self-awareness?

 

[Arthur Brain]

and yet you ramble on


fascinating


do you have any self-awareness?

Coming from someone who gets routinely banned for stalking and obsessing over posters it's bizarre that you would go on about 'self awareness'. Where's yours at? Your stupid little neg rep to TH is here for all to see, as is your embarrassing drivel in the 'Ask Knight II' thread, both examples of what got you banned. I mean, what kind of moron does that?

It's pretty much...'retarded' dude.

On that note you have fun trolling. I'm sure Squeaky's got a thread you can harass him about...