In article <741fem$tp
...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
david6
...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <7415e5$kr
...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> seh
...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > > No. You _were_ fair. Then you met Rich. Now your just like him.
> > Now THAT is a lie
> See what I mean ???
Oh, so I'm not allowed to point out a total falsehood. Riiight.
> Where you decide to spemd money is a zero sum game.
Unless you know how to make money.
> When one sex's choices impact on anothers it's a zero sum.
How so?
> I think you're being naive. And since the naivety
> happens to be of benefit to you, I'm suspicious, especially
> when I'm used to that meaning women claiming a false
> egalitarianism.
No, I'm not being naive. I happen to see things from quite
a different perspective (meaning I'm not mearly as suspicious
of men as you apparently are of women and am a lot more willing
to cut slack until I see it won't help). Neither of us may be right,
neither of us may be wrong. It may only be a perspective difference.
However, I know you are wrong when you judge my motives about
equlaity, and I find that pretty disgusting.
> > Why must supporting the
> > rights of women automatically mean that men must lose them?
> It just seems to work out that way in REAL LIFE.
I have asked liberals and conservatives alike about that.
The only "right" men seem to lose with women's equality is
that of treating women as property. Otherwise... my having the
right to vote, own property, drive my car, etc. does not affect
a man's right to do the same things at all. My having a job
didn't take away one from a man. No man was qualified for my
position when I applied. I didn't ruthlessly blow a man's
chances for buying my car when I did. My rights, and my
exercise of them, don't stop any man at all from exercising his.
Well, unless someone counts abuse and brutality as rights...
then they better not be practiced because those aren't rights.
> In the areas where it doesn't there's no argument.
> If everyone could have everything there would
> be no issues, no need for rights.
I'm not as all-or-nothing as you, apparently. Some of us
know that we can't have everything, yet it does not affect
our rights negatively at all.
> > Rights are not something existing in strictly fixed amounts.
> When "rights" conflict you must decide which one is
> worth less. They are not absolute.
> > I'm not taking any right away from you when I gain a right.
> Until those two "rights" conflict. Then we find out
> one of them was never really a right, because it
> just disolves in the face of the other one, like
> the way an acussed rapists right to a fair trial
> dissolves in the face of a woman's right to be mollycoddled.
Oh, now that is false. I hope that, if anyone you love has ever
been raped, she gets away from you right now for that comment.
But that's not a topic to go into here because it'll just
start more garbage.
> > You're not depriving
> > me of a right when you retain yours.
> You're naive.
Oh, so name-calling is your thing?
Prove this: Show me where my practice of my rights, as in my
right to vote, own property, work, etc. affect you.
You can't. You're not in the US, for one thing. Even if you
were, I doubt you'd have my job anyway because your interests
probably don't mesh with mine. My owning a car doesn't stop
you from owning one, unless you're into purple compacts. No,
not even then. I had mine painted that color, and I could just
pass on the address. My having a home does not prevent you
from having one. Sexual issues come under a whole different
area, and even then, my right to be with my SO does not
stop you from having someone of your own and doing whatever
you both agree to do. My rights don't infringe upon yours
AT ALL.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
