Re: $9: Price For a Month's Supply of Birth Control Pills With No Health Insurance

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.]

"Checkmate" <Lunati...@The.Edge> wrote in message
news:MPG.29c40eed6...@news.alt.net...

> Careful, Jenn. Gweggie's afraid of women who actually have brains.
> He's
> looking for a Stepford wife, and preferably a transsexual one.

See, that's were you're wrong. I'm not looking for a wife. A companion
would be nice but a wife, no freaking way. Wives too often become clinging
vines. I can't abide that. I have enough problems of my own without
saddling myself with somebody else's.

What I look for in a woman is independence, intelligence and the good
sense to bring to a relationship equal sharing of responsibility. I desire
a woman who is bright enough to stimulate my mind and pretty enough to
stimulate my manly desires. I also require that the woman defer to my
decisions when there is a dispute. Of course, I welcome her input and if
she's bright enough and makes a good enough point I'm often willing to
change my mind. But, somebody's got to be the ultimate arbiter in some
cases and that would be me. If the woman can't abide this kind of a
relationship then she should look elsewhere.

A good conservative woman is a happy woman because she has certain values
and standards she adheres to. A good conservative man realizes this and
acts to compliment the woman's needs. But, perhaps the very best thing
about a true conservative woman is she is happy fulfilling the sometimes
subservient role that is required of her. She knows that in doing so she
will be loved all the more because of it. This is something that entirely
escapes the liberal woman who wishes to usurp the rightful role of a man.

--
Sir Gregory

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.]

"I Bought DataBasix" <ow...@databasix.com> wrote in message
news:jjdrf3$k4b$4...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...

> On Fri, 9 Mar 2012 16:19:24 -0500, in alt.usenet.kooks " Sir Gregory
> Hall, Esq." <greg...@home.fake> wrote:
>
>>"Checkmate" <Lunati...@The.Edge> wrote in message
>>news:MPG.29c40eed6...@news.alt.net...
>>
>>> Careful, Jenn. Gweggie's afraid of women who actually have brains.
>>> He's
>>> looking for a Stepford wife, and preferably a transsexual one.
>>
>>See, that's were you're wrong. I'm not looking for a wife
>

> Yeah, cuz yer boyfriend would be MAD!


LOL! A sense of humor proves you ain't no Gary Burnore.

--
Sir Gregory

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.]

"§ñühwö£f" <snuh...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:jjdsl0$t9h$2...@dont-email.me...
> Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
>> "§ñühwö£f" <snuh...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>> news:jjdpp6$8k2$5...@dont-email.me...
>>
>>>
>>> Remember: "victory" is a euphemism for "take-a-dump".
>>
>> You spelled *victolly* wrong.
>
> Hey, "professor", go solve one of these:
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Prize_Problems>


Uh, are you capable of reading with comprehension? Did I not just post in
another thread that math is not something I excel at. Math was one of the
less inspiring areas of expertise in my IQ tests. I let adding machines
and computers do the math as I can't abide nigger work. Never could; never
will. Can't see the point of it.

And, don't call me a racist. I'm not about to bow down to the politically
correct crowd's dictates that are tarnishing the brightness of the English
language because of little itty bitty hurt feelwings (sic).

--
Sir Gregory

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.]

"§ñühwö£f" <snuh...@netscape.net> wrote in message

news:jjlivf$6m7$3...@dont-email.me...
> pandora wrote:

>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:06:39 +0000, §nühw?£f wrote:
>>
>>> Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:

>>>> "Checkmate" <Lunati...@The.Edge> wrote in message

>>>> news:MPG.29c6e8805...@news.alt.net...
>>>>> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading
>>>>> posts
>>>>> by Checkmate!
>>>>>
>>>>> First, check out what Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. said:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jenn" <n...@em.ail> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:jjjbf4$k9a$3...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>> On 3/11/2012 5:39 PM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
>>>>>> [trim]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And all of them are probably grotesque!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> His daughter is quite beautiful!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yah, I hear that all the time. Every parent thinks their own kids
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> most beautiful in the whole world even if they are grotesque to
>>>>>> everybody
>>>>>> else.
>>>>> How come you don't have any kids, Gweggie?
>>>> None of your beeswax!
>>> Because every once in a while...karma plays out for the benefit of all
>>> mankind.
>>>
>>> <nods>
>>
>> If true, t'would definitely be a boon.
>
> It goes for everyone at this point. We are beyond the Earths "carrying
> capacity". We're operating in a ecological deficit.


True and all the more reason all these slutty women should keep their
knees together.

--
Sir Gregory

[pandora]

On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 19:12:19 -0700, Checkmate wrote:

> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
> Checkmate!
>
> First, check out what Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. said:
>
>
>
>> "Checkmate" <Lunati...@The.Edge> wrote in message

>> news:MPG.29c928bc7...@news.alt.net...

>> > Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts
>> > by Checkmate!
>> >
>> > First, check out what Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. said:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> "Checkmate" <Lunati...@The.Edge> wrote in message

>> >> news:MPG.29c824fe4...@news.alt.net...

>> >> > Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading
>> >> > posts by
>> >> > Checkmate!
>> >> >
>> >> > First, check out what Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. said:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Checkmate" <Lunati...@The.Edge> wrote in message

>> >> >> news:MPG.29c7f26f2...@news.alt.net...

>> >> >> > Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading
>> >> >> > posts
>> >> >> > by
>> >> >> > Checkmate!
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > First, check out what Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. said:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> "Checkmate" <Lunati...@The.Edge> wrote in message

>> >> >> >> news:MPG.29c7e53c3...@news.alt.net...

>> >> >> >> > Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when
>> >> >> >> > reading posts
>> >> >> >> > by
>> >> >> >> > Checkmate!
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > First, check out what Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. said:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> "Checkmate" <Lunati...@The.Edge> wrote in message

>> >> >> >> >> news:MPG.29c7d033e...@news.alt.net...

>> >> >> >> >> > Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when
>> >> >> >> >> > reading
>> >> >> >> >> > posts
>> >> >> >> >> > by
>> >> >> >> >> > Checkmate!
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > First, check out what Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. said:
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >

>> >> >> >> >> >> "pandora" <pan...@peak.org> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> >> news:zoOdnYfoBfuEhcPS...@scnresearch.com...

>> >> >> >> >> >> I have some "wild oat" kids and probably even some
>> >> >> >> >> >> grandchildren
>> >> >> >> >> >> by
>> >> >> >> >> >> now.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > Sort of like a deadbeat dad?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Wrong! A deadbeat dad is a man who got married and knocked
>> >> >> >> >> up his
>> >> >> >> >> wife
>> >> >> >> >> then ran out on his obligations. In my case, the women were
>> >> >> >> >> horny
>> >> >> >> >> 1960's
>> >> >> >> >> hippies who just wanted to copulate for fun and they had no
>> >> >> >> >> intentions
>> >> >> >> >> of
>> >> >> >> >> getting married. If and when sluts like these get pregnant
>> >> >> >> >> the child
>> >> >> >> >> is
>> >> >> >> >> entirely their responsibility, theirs to raise and support.
>> >> >> >> >> I sure
>> >> >> >> >> didn't
>> >> >> >> >> MAKE them promiscuous. They were in the vanguard of the
>> >> >> >> >> liberated
>> >> >> >> >> women.
>> >> >> >> >> Odd isn't it how their being liberated forced them to take
>> >> >> >> >> twenty
>> >> >> >> >> or
>> >> >> >> >> so
>> >> >> >> >> of
>> >> >> >> >> the best years of their lives to raise a child or children
>> >> >> >> >> all by
>> >> >> >> >> their
>> >> >> >> >> liberated selves. Serves 'em right, I say.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Wow.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Just wow...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Yup, the logic cannot be faulted! A simpler way to state it
>> >> >> >> would be:
>> >> >> >> They
>> >> >> >> made their own beds so they can lie in them.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Liberals generally have to learn the hard way the belief that
>> >> >> >> they
>> >> >> >> aren't
>> >> >> >> responsible for anything and that anything difficult or bad
>> >> >> >> that happens
>> >> >> >> to them is just bad luck is a liberal lie.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So if you knocked some girl up because you BOTH made the
>> >> >> > decision to
>> >> >> > have
>> >> >> > sex, it's her job to raise the kids solely at her expense, and
>> >> >> > you just
>> >> >> > walk away with absolutely NO responsibility whatsoever? What a
>> >> >> > fuckhead.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That's where you're delusional. Women are the sole decision
>> >> >> makers when
>> >> >> it
>> >> >> comes to copulation. They either want it and allow it or they
>> >> >> don't want
>> >> >> it and don't allow it. (not talking about instances of rape here)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If women allow copulation and they don't use birth control, any
>> >> >> pregnancy
>> >> >> is entirely their own fault and their sole responsibility. Your
>> >> >> logic
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> flawed. Using your logic I could say food is equally responsible
>> >> >> as Ragnar
>> >> >> is for Ragnar's obesity.
>> >> >
>> >> > Using your own argument, the same would apply to a married couple
>> >> > if the
>> >> > man decided to walk away. The courts and Child Protective
>> >> > Services say
>> >> > otherwise in either case. Your own conscience should say
>> >> > otherwise. This is what I don't get about you, Greg/Neal/Whatever.
>> >> > You're obviously
>> >> > intelligent and educated, but you have some very whacked-out
>> >> > ideas. I
>> >> > would think you'd know better.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> What you call 'whacked out' ideas are anything but as they are based
>> >> upon
>> >> the dictates of logic. It's a real shame that logic is no longer
>> >> taught in
>> >> the liberal public educational system below college level. The lack
>> >> of logic is responsible for most, if not all, the idiocy that
>> >> surrounds us in
>> >> this day and age. Logic has been replaced by politically correct
>> >> thinking
>> >> which is but another term for * institutionalized insanity*.
>> >
>> > "Logically," do you think it's in society's best interest to allow
>> > children to be born into this world without the financial support of
>> > both
>> > parents who brought them into the world in the first place? Do you
>> > think
>> > that's beneficial to the child? If he's brought up in poverty and
>> > under-
>> > educated because of this lack of support, do you think that benefits
>> > society?
>>
>> Another straw man argument! You are proficient at building annexes and
>> then asking for me to defend or deny the annex. Beneficial to society
>> or benefit to the child has NOTHING to do with 100% responsibility for
>> what one does with one's body and the consequences of one's actions
>> respecting that body. Societal laws, more often than not, purposely
>> degrade the very idea of individual responsibility. Society IS
>> anti-individual, after all.
>
> Public policy in regards to the care and feeding of children is in
> everyone's best interest, and is meant for people like you who think
> they can hop from hole to hole like a naughty little bunny with no
> regard for the consequences. It's a shame we have to legislate morality
> and responsibility, but some people are recklessly irresponsible... like
> you, for instance.


Indeed. If not for irresponsible individuals such as gweggie, we
wouldn't need laws regulating such. Sad but true.

[meowmix]

all this crap just reminds me of soc.men. he'd fit in there.


--
mhm x v i x i i i

January 2012 winner of the UNABOMBER SURPRISE

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.]

"Jenn" <n...@em.ail> wrote in message news:jjp0v0$kq2$7...@dont-email.me...
> On 3/13/2012 12:41 AM, Checkmate wrote:


[trim]

>> Yes it was. Apparently if a woman practiced "free love," she was a
>> slut
>> and it was her responsibility to take care of any kids if she got
>> pregnant. Greg feels that he would have no responsibility for any form
>> of support because it was her fault for not using birth control, so he
>> was free to just walk away.
>>
>
> well.. I kind of agree with that assessment of women who do that sort of
> thing ... BUT, the men who make them sluts are just as bad, imo... man
> sluts? Women should know better than to think they can play and not
> have to pay the consequences.


BINGO! It sure is refreshing to read a woman who's not just a big
hypocrite.

I get so sick of hearing some woman stridently claiming, "It's my body and
I can do with it as I wish." "Nobody can tell me what to do with my body.
If I wish to get an abortion then it's nobody else's business but mine."
"The government has no right to tell me what I can do in the privacy of my
bedroom. It's all me, myself and I. (But when she gets pregnant how come
she points her finger at a man and says "It's 50% about him, 50% his
fault?")

If a woman really believes what she's saying about it being her body to do
with as she will then she should also believe she's 100 responsible for
her body which means she's 100% responsible if her body gets pregnant
(barring rape, of course). All she has to do to prevent pregnancy is not
copulate with a fertile man.

A woman's body, a woman's choice = a woman's responsibility. It doesn't
get much more clear than that.

--
Sir Gregory

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.]

"Jenn" <n...@em.ail> wrote in message news:jjp8a0$j99$4...@dont-email.me...

> On 3/13/2012 11:50 PM, §ñühwö£f wrote:
>> Checkmate<Lunati...@The.Edge> wrote in

>> news:MPG.29c9bf76c...@news.alt.net:
>>> First, check out what Jenn said:

[trim]

>>> You're starting to sound a lot like one of Greg's many socks, Jenn.
>>>
>> Its an actual separate being...they just drink the same wingnut k00l-
>> aid...
>>
>> <nods>
>
> ... which really means .. I have a mind of my own not controlled by the
> status quo at large and I'm fully capable of coming to an informed
> conclusion on my own AND have no need for government or anyone else to
> do any thinking for me since I'm fully capable of doing so myself.

I think I'm in LOVE!! We need more Jenn's around here just to
counterbalance the liberals dullards and drones like Shiny, Pandora,
Rhonda, and Lardy Veteran.

--
Sir Gregory

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.]

"Checkmate" <Lunati...@The.Edge> wrote in message

news:MPG.29c9d07d3...@news.alt.net...

> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
> Checkmate!
>

> First, check out what Jenn said:
>
>
>>

>> On 3/13/2012 11:33 PM, Checkmate wrote:
>> > Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts
>> > by
>> > Checkmate!
>> >

>> > First, check out what Jenn said:
>> >
>> >
>> >>

>> >> On 3/13/2012 12:41 AM, Checkmate wrote:

>> >>> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading
>> >>> posts by
>> >>> Checkmate!
>> >>>

>> >>> First, check out what Jenn said:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>

>> >>>> On 3/12/2012 11:19 PM, Checkmate wrote:
>> >>>>> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading
>> >>>>> posts by
>> >>>>> Checkmate!
>> >>>>>

>> >>>>> First, check out what Jenn said:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>

>> >>>>>> On 3/12/2012 11:01 PM, Checkmate wrote:
>> >>>>>>> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading
>> >>>>>>> posts by
>> >>>>>>> Checkmate!
>> >>>>>>>

>> >>>>>>> First, check out what Jenn said:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>

>> >>>>>>>> §ñühwö£f wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:

>> >>>>>>>>>> "Jenn"<m...@noe.mail.com> wrote in message
>> >>>>>>>>>> news:jjl4pd$dgc$1...@dont-email.me...

>> >>>>>>>>>>> §nühw?£f wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Checkmate"<Lunati...@The.Edge> wrote in message
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:MPG.29c6e8805...@news.alt.net...
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reading
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> posts by Checkmate!
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> First, check out what Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. said:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Jenn"<n...@em.ail> wrote in message

>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:jjjbf4$k9a$3...@dont-email.me...
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/11/2012 5:39 PM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [trim]
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And all of them are probably grotesque!
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His daughter is quite beautiful!
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yah, I hear that all the time. Every parent thinks
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their own
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kids are the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most beautiful in the whole world even if they are
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grotesque to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everybody
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How come you don't have any kids, Gweggie?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> None of your beeswax!
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Because every once in a while...karma plays out for the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> benefit of
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> all mankind.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <nods>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>

>> >>>>>>>>>>> Seems I asked you a while back if you had kids, snu ... and
>> >>>>>>>>>>> got no
>> >>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> The snuwolf has cubs!
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Idiots...what kind of person would bring a child into such a
>> >>>>>>>>> fucked up
>> >>>>>>>>> world as this? Humans should have stopped breeding when the
>> >>>>>>>>> Earths
>> >>>>>>>>> population hit 1 billion.
>> >>>>>>>>> Only selfish or ignorant people are still pumping out sprogs.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> www.zpg.org
>> >>>>>>>>> (zero population growth)
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Breeding?
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> He's talking about sex, Jenn.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> ya think? lol
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I'm pretty sure. Speaking of sex, did you read Greg's views on
>> >>>>> getting
>> >>>>> women pregnant and shirking all responsibility for the kids? I
>> >>>>> told you
>> >>>>> he was "special"!
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> You mean the hippy free love and sex thing? It was a different
>> >>>> world
>> >>>> back then.

>> >>>
>> >>> Yes it was. Apparently if a woman practiced "free love," she was a
>> >>> slut
>> >>> and it was her responsibility to take care of any kids if she got
>> >>> pregnant. Greg feels that he would have no responsibility for any
>> >>> form
>> >>> of support because it was her fault for not using birth control, so
>> >>> he
>> >>> was free to just walk away.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> well.. I kind of agree with that assessment of women who do that
>> >> sort of
>> >> thing ... BUT, the men who make them sluts are just as bad, imo...
>> >> man
>> >> sluts? Women should know better than to think they can play and
>> >> not
>> >> have to pay the consequences.
>> >

>> > You're starting to sound a lot like one of Greg's many socks, Jenn.
>> >
>>

>> I don't even know Greg .. just chatted with him a few times like you.
>> If women are going to give *it* away to just every man they meet, then
>> why shouldn't they be responsible their actions? Just seems logical to
>> me.
>
> Both should be responsible for the consequences. Just curious... as a
> woman, do you find it insulting that women who have sex with a lot of
> men
> are referred to as whores, while men who have sex with a lot of women
> are
> called "Playas"?


Both should be responsible for the consequences of a woman unilaterally
giving it away?

And you call me dumb? Bwahhahahahah. Jenn is 100% correct and you are
totally wrong. You've been brainwashed by the liberal "it takes a village"
mentality. You don't see that an individual has certain individual
responsibilities and should accept the consequences of his or her actions.

Look at it this way. You decide, all by yourself, that you'd like to eat
10,000 calories a day. And, you want it to be a quality experience so you
pick the finest restaurant and eat and drink there to the tune of 10,000
calories a day. Nine month's later you weight 500 pounds. Are you
seriously going to claim it's half the restaurants responsibility for your
obesity? Are you going to say they provided the food so the obesity is
half their fault so they should pay your medical bills?

Freaking lunatic moron!

--
Sir Gregory

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.]

"shiny" <a@b.ç> wrote in message
news:XnsA01666D...@208.90.168.18...

[trim}
>
> nellie never argues for logic, order, right, or justice. he never
> advocates what it good for society as a whole. his practice is to decide
> how he wants things to be for his own benefit, and rationalize why that
> is the way it should be.

"nellie" always argues using logic and conservative principles. What is
good for society is often bad for an individual. Society places itself at
the top and places the individual somewhere underneath. Conservatives
like myself live by certain moral and ethical guidelines. These rules or
guidlines mean something to us. They are a framework in which we live our
lives. We try out best not to stray outside the framework. Individual
worth is one of the primary steel girders in this framework. We also
understand that individual worth means individual steadfastness. We aren't
a wishy washy bunch.

You liberals, on the other hand, embrace a mishmash of contradictory rules
and guidelines that are more often than not at odds. You are unruly, wishy
washy and you put feelings ahead of principles. If some principle you've
believed in most of your life makes you feel badly about something you
then abandon that principle so you can feel good about yourselves.

This is why you are incapable of winning any debate. You lack the solid
footing it takes to prevail in the arena of ideas because your ideas are
at odds with one another. Get a freaking clue and just STFU because the
more you run your mouths the more you end up exposing the fact that your
ideology is unsupportable outside the realm of illogical feelings.

--
Sir Gregory

[Checkmate]

Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate!

First, check out what Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. said:


>

> "shiny" <a@b.ç> wrote in message
> news:XnsA01666D...@208.90.168.18...
>
> [trim}
> >
> > nellie never argues for logic, order, right, or justice. he never
> > advocates what it good for society as a whole. his practice is to decide
> > how he wants things to be for his own benefit, and rationalize why that
> > is the way it should be.

[...]

> Conservatives like myself live by certain moral and ethical guidelines.
> These rules or guidlines mean something to us.

"US"? Greg, no card-carrying conservative would ever associate himself
with your wacky ideas. Now go empty your shit bucket. It's starting to
stink.



--
Checkmate
KotAGoR XXXIV
Hammer of Thor, Feb. 2012
Copyright © 2012
all rights reserved

"its usually the lesser intelligent person , that comments
on the more intelligent person's , lack of intelligents"

-Dave Keating, AKA "Squiggles" the assworm, AKA %, explaining
intelligence

[pandora]

Yes, he certainly would. Hard to believe that such still exists.

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.]

"pandora" <pan...@peak.org> wrote in message

news:7sedneOcSpTmSP3S...@scnresearch.com... some other
estrogen idiot typed:

[trim]

>> all this crap just reminds me of soc.men. he'd fit in there.
>>
> Yes, he certainly would. Hard to believe that such still exists.

Harder to believe you're too stupid and rude to learn how to trim.

--
Sir Gregory

[pandora]

One doesn't *eat* sperm. If YOU don't want to have kids, keep your sperm
to yourself.

"Do you know where your sperm are?"

[pandora]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 13:35:09 -0400, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:

> "pandora" <pan...@peak.org> wrote in message
> news:7sedneOcSpTmSP3S...@scnresearch.com... some other
> estrogen idiot typed:
>
> [trim]
>
>
>>> all this crap just reminds me of soc.men. he'd fit in there.
>>>
>> Yes, he certainly would. Hard to believe that such still exists.
>
>
> Harder

I understand.

[Jenn]

Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:

haha .. there are a lot of liberals, too, who think they are all that!!
{points to snuwolf and aardvark}

--
Jenn

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.]

"pandora" <pan...@peak.org> wrote in message

news:7sedneKcSpRIS_3S...@scnresearch.com...

Shiny swallows! You're apparently an old prude. I pity your husband's
bleak sex life.

But, all kidding aside, the lack of logic you display is just appalling.
Sperm isn't the point. The point is what one *chooses*, of one's own
volition, to do with one's body is one's sole responsibility. If your
choice has consequences then be an adult and assume the responsibility for
the consequences.

If a man chooses to eat his way up to 500 pounds, he's got nobody but
himself to place the responsibility on. If a woman chooses to copulate
with a fertile man she's responsible for becoming pregnant. Her body. Her
choice. Her consequences. Her responsibility. Perhaps men should all start
viewing women for what they are? Dumb bimbos who are too stupid to take
responsibility for their actions? I don't think so. Women are way too
conniving. A hutch in which to trammel some wild thing?

You dazed and confused liberals just jump through hoops in a failed
attempt to not assume the responsibility for your actions. You are ALWAYS
just unwitting victims who just have bad luck or some such. Yah right!

Grow up already!

--
Sir Gregory

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.]

"pandora" <pan...@peak.org> wrote in message

news:7sednRycSpRUSv3S...@scnresearch.com...

I doubt it! You attitude and appearance probably causes a "softie"! LOL!

--
Sir Gregory

[Jenn]

Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
> "pandora" <pan...@peak.org> wrote in message
> news:7sedneKcSpRIS_3S...@scnresearch.com...
>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:23:10 -0400, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
>>
>>> "Checkmate" <Lunati...@The.Edge> wrote in message

>>> Both should be responsible for the consequences of a woman
>>> unilaterally giving it away?
>>>
>>> And you call me dumb? Bwahhahahahah. Jenn is 100% correct and you
>>> are totally wrong. You've been brainwashed by the liberal "it takes
>>> a village" mentality. You don't see that an individual has certain
>>> individual responsibilities and should accept the consequences of
>>> his or
>>> her actions.
>>>
>>> Look at it this way. You decide, all by yourself, that you'd like to
>>> eat
>>> 10,000 calories a day. And, you want it to be a quality experience
>>> so you pick the finest restaurant and eat and drink there to the
>>> tune of 10,000 calories a day. Nine month's later you weight 500
>>> pounds. Are you
>>> seriously going to claim it's half the restaurants responsibility
>>> for your obesity? Are you going to say they provided the food so the
>>> obesity
>>> is half their fault so they should pay your medical bills?
>>>
>>> Freaking lunatic moron!
>>
>>
>> One doesn't *eat* sperm. If YOU don't want to have kids, keep your
>> sperm
>> to yourself.

<snip>

> But, all kidding aside, the lack of logic you display is just
> appalling. Sperm isn't the point. The point is what one *chooses*, of
> one's own volition, to do with one's body is one's sole
> responsibility. If your choice has consequences then be an adult and
> assume the responsibility for the consequences.

I agree. Both parties having made the choice should bear the consequences
and responsibility.

> If a man chooses to eat his way up to 500 pounds, he's got nobody but
> himself to place the responsibility on. If a woman chooses to copulate
> with a fertile man she's responsible for becoming pregnant. Her body.

I agree to a point.

> Her choice. Her consequences. Her responsibility.

The product of that union is made up of the DNA of 2 people and as a product
of 2 people becomes the responsibility of those 2 people if that life is
born. Both parties made the choice not just the woman, therefore, both
should sustain the consequences, and both should be adult and assume that
responsibility for the consequences.

> Perhaps men should
> all start viewing women for what they are? Dumb bimbos who are too
> stupid to take responsibility for their actions? I don't think so.
> Women are way too conniving. A hutch in which to trammel some wild
> thing?

Many women ARE way to conniving .. others cringe at the thought that their
own gender can do such things, as I'm sure men feel the same way about
representatives of their own gender.


--
Jenn

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.]

"Jenn" <m...@noe.mail.com> wrote in message

news:jjqm8g$vu1$2...@dont-email.me...

> Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
>> "Checkmate" <Lunati...@The.Edge> wrote in message

>> news:MPG.29c9d07d3...@news.alt.net...
>>> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading
>>> posts by Checkmate!
>>>
>>> First, check out what Jenn said:
>
>>>> I don't even know Greg .. just chatted with him a few times like

>>>> you. If women are going to give it away to just every man they

>>>> meet, then why shouldn't they be responsible their actions? Just
>>>> seems logical to me.
>>>
>>> Both should be responsible for the consequences. Just curious... as
>>> a woman, do you find it insulting that women who have sex with a lot
>>> of men
>>> are referred to as whores, while men who have sex with a lot of women
>>> are
>>> called "Playas"?
>

>> Both should be responsible for the consequences of a woman
>> unilaterally giving it away?
>>
>> And you call me dumb? Bwahhahahahah. Jenn is 100% correct and you are
>> totally wrong. You've been brainwashed by the liberal "it takes a
>> village" mentality. You don't see that an individual has certain
>> individual responsibilities and should accept the consequences of his
>> or her actions.
>> Look at it this way. You decide, all by yourself, that you'd like to
>> eat 10,000 calories a day. And, you want it to be a quality
>> experience so you pick the finest restaurant and eat and drink there
>> to the tune of 10,000 calories a day. Nine month's later you weight
>> 500 pounds. Are you seriously going to claim it's half the
>> restaurants responsibility for your obesity? Are you going to say
>> they provided the food so the obesity is half their fault so they
>> should pay your medical bills?
>> Freaking lunatic moron!
>

> That's one of my pet peeves too.
>
> It's ridiculous that people want to blame the food chains or
> restaurants for them getting fat. It's just crazy.
>
> Additionally, if women play and get pregnant .. then
> they whine about how it's all the mans fault.... she had to say YES.. ya
> know. Mind you .. I believe men should be using birth control and if
> they
> don't... they also played, so they should also pay for the consequences
> of
> their actions, too.


Not without a marriage contract . . .

Only women get pregnant. Only women give birth. Only women can use birth
control of various types. Men can't control births because they don't
control a woman's body. Women can demand men use meds or physical barriers
but none of these are 100% safe. Even a condom is really a woman's form of
birth control because it works (or fails) in her vagina. It is often the
woman who hands the condom to the man and says, "Put this on, please."

If a woman uses birth control or causes the man to use a condom she knows
it's not 100%. Therefore, the woman should assume the responsibility for
any birth control failure. If a woman truly doesn't want to become
pregnant then copulate with one or more of the many men who've had
vasectomies. Better yet, abstain completely until such time she wishes to
get married and become pregnant.

A woman has the right to demand a man use a condom or hit the road. But
the man shouldn't be held responsible for any pregnancy that might result
if the prophylaxis proves ineffective. It's not the man's body that
becomes pregnant. It's the woman's body, the woman's risk she takes and as
long as women claim it's their body to do with as they will then it's also
her taking the risk and it's her body to assume full responsibility for
the consequences of doing with it as she will.

--
Sir Gregory

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.]

"Jenn" <m...@noe.mail.com> wrote in message

news:jjqmng$3ki$1...@dont-email.me...

And, that's where we disagree. If a woman decides to abort an unwanted
pregnancy, that 1/2 of the man's DNA is also aborted and the man has
NOTHING whatsoever to say about it. The woman will say, "It's my body to
do with as I will." She never says, "Since it's half your DNA in here you
should get 50% say." Why do women think they can have it both ways, Jenn?

--
Sir Gregory

[Checkmate]

Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate!

First, check out what Jenn said:


>

Oh, good. I was starting to worry about you, but there couldn't possibly
be another human being in the world who thinks exactly like our Gweggie.

> > Perhaps men should
> > all start viewing women for what they are? Dumb bimbos who are too
> > stupid to take responsibility for their actions? I don't think so.
> > Women are way too conniving. A hutch in which to trammel some wild
> > thing?
>
> Many women ARE way to conniving .. others cringe at the thought that their
> own gender can do such things, as I'm sure men feel the same way about
> representatives of their own gender.



--

[Checkmate]

Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate!

First, check out what Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. said:


>

LOL! STOO-pud!

>
> Only women get pregnant. Only women give birth. Only women can use birth
> control of various types. Men can't control births because they don't
> control a woman's body. Women can demand men use meds or physical barriers
> but none of these are 100% safe. Even a condom is really a woman's form of
> birth control because it works (or fails) in her vagina. It is often the
> woman who hands the condom to the man and says, "Put this on, please."
>
> If a woman uses birth control or causes the man to use a condom she knows
> it's not 100%. Therefore, the woman should assume the responsibility for
> any birth control failure. If a woman truly doesn't want to become
> pregnant then copulate with one or more of the many men who've had
> vasectomies. Better yet, abstain completely until such time she wishes to
> get married and become pregnant.
>
> A woman has the right to demand a man use a condom or hit the road. But
> the man shouldn't be held responsible for any pregnancy that might result
> if the prophylaxis proves ineffective. It's not the man's body that
> becomes pregnant. It's the woman's body, the woman's risk she takes and as
> long as women claim it's their body to do with as they will then it's also
> her taking the risk and it's her body to assume full responsibility for
> the consequences of doing with it as she will.



--

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.]

"Checkmate" <Lunati...@The.Edge> wrote in message

news:MPG.29ca891cf...@news.alt.net...

> First, check out what Jenn said:

[trim]

>> The product of that union is made up of the DNA of 2 people and as a
>> product
>> of 2 people becomes the responsibility of those 2 people if that life
>> is
>> born. Both parties made the choice not just the woman, therefore, both
>> should sustain the consequences, and both should be adult and assume
>> that
>> responsibility for the consequences.
>
> Oh, good. I was starting to worry about you, but there couldn't
> possibly
> be another human being in the world who thinks exactly like our Gweggie.

Yup, Einstein passed away long ago. . .

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.]

"Checkmate" <Lunati...@The.Edge> wrote in message

news:MPG.29ca8980d...@news.alt.net...

What would you know about it? You don't have to worry about your sperm in
Ragnar's rectum getting him pregnant. LOL!

--
Sir Gregory

[Jenn]

Interesting point ...

>
> Only women get pregnant. Only women give birth. Only women can use
> birth control of various types.

All true ...

> Men can't control births because they
> don't control a woman's body.

Only half correct .. Men *can* control births if they don't unzip their
pants. :-) No unzipped pants insert into slot ... no births...
BUT, it's true men don't control a woman's body.

> Women can demand men use meds or
> physical barriers but none of these are 100% safe.

So, neither should play then.

> Even a condom is
> really a woman's form of birth control because it works (or fails) in
> her vagina. It is often the woman who hands the condom to the man and
> says, "Put this on, please."

That's a sad statement for men who should be taking responsibility for their
own bodies.

> If a woman uses birth control or causes the man to use a condom she
> knows it's not 100%. Therefore, the woman should assume the
> responsibility for any birth control failure.

Both parties consent .. both parties are responsible for their own actions.
Both parties are fully able and capable of just saying, "NO".

> If a woman truly
> doesn't want to become pregnant then copulate with one or more of the
> many men who've had vasectomies.

Touche! Good point. Problem is that many vasectomies have the possibility
of failing.

> Better yet, abstain completely until
> such time she wishes to get married and become pregnant.

Another good point that I totally agree with...

> A woman has the right to demand a man use a condom or hit the road.

agreed

> But the man shouldn't be held responsible for any pregnancy that
> might result if the prophylaxis proves ineffective.

I disagree. His DNA has been transferred. It is akin to being responsible
for transferring any bodily fluid.. ergo .. if a man (or woman) transmits an
STD and does so with knowledge, he can be guilty of crimes up to and
including attempted murder.

> It's not the
> man's body that becomes pregnant.

obviously .. LOL

> It's the woman's body, the woman's
> risk she takes

True

> and as long as women claim it's their body to do with
> as they will then it's also her taking the risk

risk ...which is a foolish lifestyle, imo.

> and it's her body to
> assume full responsibility for the consequences of doing with it as
> she will.

She should assume responsibility as should the man, also.

--
Jenn

[%]

[Checkmate]

Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate!

You forgot to SQUAWK, Squiggles. No cracker for you!

[meowmix]

what's the betting he calls his 'ship' his floating cave.

[meowmix]

if you don't like the culture of the upa/meow ng's, kindly fuck off.

[Aardvark]

....then you woke up and had your Corn Flakes.


--
"Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved
in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee".
-John Donne (1572-1631)

[pandora]

>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >> > On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:06:39 +0000, §nühw?£f

I wouldn't doubt it for a moment.

[%]

Evan Platt wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 14:25:20 -0400, " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq."
> <greg...@home.fake> wrote:
>
>> But the man shouldn't be held responsible for any pregnancy that
>> might result if the prophylaxis proves ineffective.
>

> Really? So if the man has, for some reason, the intention to get the
> women pregnant, and creates holes in the condom, he should be able to
> walk away scott free?


men should have no accountability for anything they do ever

[Checkmate]

Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate!

Like you when you're giving suicidal teenagers advice on how to kill
themselves?

[%]

Checkmate wrote:
> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts
> by Checkmate!
>
> First, check out what % said:
>
>
>>
>> Evan Platt wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 14:25:20 -0400, " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq."
>>> <greg...@home.fake> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But the man shouldn't be held responsible for any pregnancy that
>>>> might result if the prophylaxis proves ineffective.
>>>
>>> Really? So if the man has, for some reason, the intention to get the
>>> women pregnant, and creates holes in the condom, he should be able
>>> to walk away scott free?
>>
>>
>> men should have no accountability for anything they do ever
>
> Like you when you're giving suicidal teenagers advice on how to kill
> themselves?

or like when you tell me i should kill myself

[Kenneth S.]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:35:17 -0500, pandora <pan...@peak.org> wrote:

> * * * * *

>>
>> And you call me dumb? Bwahhahahahah. Jenn is 100% correct and you are
>> totally wrong. You've been brainwashed by the liberal "it takes a
>> village" mentality. You don't see that an individual has certain
>> individual responsibilities and should accept the consequences of his or
>> her actions.
>>
>> Look at it this way. You decide, all by yourself, that you'd like to eat
>> 10,000 calories a day. And, you want it to be a quality experience so
>> you pick the finest restaurant and eat and drink there to the tune of
>> 10,000 calories a day. Nine month's later you weight 500 pounds. Are you
>> seriously going to claim it's half the restaurants responsibility for
>> your obesity? Are you going to say they provided the food so the obesity
>> is half their fault so they should pay your medical bills?
>>
>> Freaking lunatic moron!
>
>
>One doesn't *eat* sperm. If YOU don't want to have kids, keep your sperm
>to yourself.
>
>"Do you know where your sperm are?"

I don't really understand Pandora's comment above. It seems
to apply only to men, since (as far as I know) men are the only ones
to generate sperm.

Or am I misunderstanding? Does Pandora believe also that
women who don't want kids should keep their eggs to themselves?

The thing that puzzles me is why so many feminists say they
want equality between the sexes, but insist that women -- and only
women -- should have post-conception reproductive choice. It would be
perfectly possible to say that men who don't want to become fathers
should be able to walk away from unwanted pregnancies. That's what
Mother Nature allows. It's the law that prevents men from exercising
the reproductive choices given to them by Nature.

But then, what do I know? Doubtless, someone will put me
straight. I've been puzzling for years over why so many female
pro-choicers want to deny post-conception reproductive choice to men.

[Jenn]

That is really an interesting point, imo, and probably a good idea with
provisions that men also sign away any rights to the child in the future.
However, since their DNA is in that child the biolotical father should at
least provide a medical history because the child will need that information
in the future. Additionally, I believe the biological father should be
willing to be tested for things like bone marrow if in the case the child
needed it to save its life late on. I would also think the father should
have to pay a small sum of money to the mother in order to sign away his
rights to the child, mostly to offset the costs of giving birth. Just seems
like the right thing to do to me.

--
Jenn

[Checkmate]

Well, excuse me for trying to make the world a better place...

[§ñühwö£f]

bonerbonerbonerbonerbonerboner
bonerbonerbonerbonerbonerboner
bonerbonerbonerbonerbonerboner
bonerbonerbonerbonerbonerboner
bonerbonerbonerbonerbonerboner
bonerbonerbonerbonerbonerboner
bonerbonerbonerbonerbonerboner
bonerbonerbonerbonerbonerboner
bonerbonerbonerbonerbonerboner
bonerbonerbonerbonerbonerboner
bonerbonerbonerbonerbonerboner
bonerbonerbonerbonerbonerboner
bonerbonerbonerbonerbonerboner
bonerbonerbonerbonerbonerboner
bonerbonerbonerbonerbonerboner
bonerbonerbonerbonerbonerboner


--
http://www.privacySOS.org | www.extinctioncrisis.org
www.snuhwolf.9f.com|www.savewolves.org
_____ ____ ____ __ /\_/\ __ _ ______ _____
/ __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \ \ __\
_\ \/ / /_/ / _ / \ / \ \| \| \ \_\ \ \__\ _\
/___/_/|_/\____/_//_/ \_@_/ \__|\__|\____/\____\_\

[%]

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.]

"Jenn" <m...@noe.mail.com> wrote in message

news:jjtgh4$l7b$1...@dont-email.me...

So you think the mother, who claims a one hundred percent right to do
what she will with her body, deserves, when her body produces a child,
some form of monetary payment to cover birthing expenses she KNEW she
would incur and she wants the sperm donor to pay? Good grief!!!

As for the father having to provide bone marrow (painful and expensive)
and a medical history (private and personal), the mother should have
gotten a marriage contract before she got pregnant. It's ludicrous to
think a man should have to release his medical information to a bastard
child the mother was irresponsible enough to conceive.

Again, it's a case of certain women wanting to have it both ways. They
want to be able to hop into bed with any man who strikes their fancy
knowing full well pregnancy could result and they do this without a
marriage contract. Then they expect to enjoy some or all the benefits of a
marriage contract, after the fact. This is after they decide
*unilaterally* that they want to give birth to the child. What's next? If
the woman decides to abort the child, the man should pay?

This is such an arrogant double standard from any woman.

--
Sir Gregory

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.]

"Kenneth S." <nim...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:pnf4m7lkfgdlpd4n7...@4ax.com...

Pandora's not the brightest of subscribers, I'm afraid. She tends to get
lost if she has to read more than one or two sentences and she loses
herself if she replies with more than one or two sentences.

> Or am I misunderstanding? Does Pandora believe also that
> women who don't want kids should keep their eggs to themselves?

She does not. She believes women should be able to have their cake and eat
it too. She's pretty typical of the liberal female mindset.

> The thing that puzzles me is why so many feminists say they
> want equality between the sexes, but insist that women -- and only
> women -- should have post-conception reproductive choice.

That proves they don't want equality. They proclaim this crap that it's
their body and they have the right to do with their body as they see fit.
They claim the unilateral right to abort a baby because it's their body
yet on the other hand they then say that 50% of the DNA is the man's so
the man should pay birthing expenses and child support if they decide not
to have an abortion.

Oh the hypocrisy!

> It would be
> perfectly possible to say that men who don't want to become fathers
> should be able to walk away from unwanted pregnancies. That's what
> Mother Nature allows. It's the law that prevents men from exercising
> the reproductive choices given to them by Nature.

Correct. And these liberal women confuse civil law with natural law. They
claim civil law rights when they want the man to pay for a child but on
the other hand they claim natural law rights when they wish to abort the
child. And, they schlepp into discussion groups and attempt to justify
their hypocrisy working both ends against the middle. Then when they are
told they are illogical and crass they get their feelings hurt. And, after
all this they ludicrously attempt to maintain that they are equally
intelligent as men. This, after they've just proven they are anything but.

> But then, what do I know? Doubtless, someone will put me
> straight. I've been puzzling for years over why so many female
> pro-choicers want to deny post-conception reproductive choice to men.

Nobody will put you straight because your position is logical and correct.

--
Sir Gregory

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.]

"Evan Platt" <ev...@theobvious.espphotography.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:ejt3m71cr6ltd9ae7...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 14:25:20 -0400, " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq."
> <greg...@home.fake> wrote:
>

>>But the man shouldn't be held responsible for any pregnancy that might
>>result
>>if the prophylaxis proves ineffective.
>

> Really? So if the man has, for some reason, the intention to get the

> women pregnant, and creates holes in the condom, he should be able to
> walk away scott free?


Yes, really! The entire point is the man wouldn't be anywhere NEAR the
woman's vagina with that condom if the woman said *NO* to vaginal sex. You
conveniently edited out the part where I said the woman handed the man the
condom. If the woman does that then she is entirely responsible for any
failure of that condom. A man punching holes in it is one of the things
she should pay heed to. Perhaps she should do like the professional whores
do and pop the condom in her mouth then go down on the man to place it
securely over his penis.

--
Sir Gregory

[Jenn]

Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:

They both knew when they did the deed there was a possibility of conception
regardless of method of birth control used because nothing is 100%.

> As for the father having to provide bone marrow (painful and
> expensive) and a medical history (private and personal), the mother
> should have gotten a marriage contract before she got pregnant. It's
> ludicrous to think a man should have to release his medical
> information to a bastard child the mother was irresponsible enough to
> conceive.

Both were irresponsible... the mother will incur a lifetime with the child..
the biological father should at the very least provide medical information
and a few other things for being part and party to the conception. The
legalities should be worked out with fairness for the sake of the childs
future health, imo.

> Again, it's a case of certain women wanting to have it both ways. They
> want to be able to hop into bed with any man who strikes their fancy

If a man is going to hop into bed with just any woman who is like that, then
he is more than likely to have a similar character.

> knowing full well pregnancy could result and they do this without a
> marriage contract. Then they expect to enjoy some or all the benefits
> of a marriage contract, after the fact.

Marriage contracts are rarely about children, but it's not to say they
couldn't be.

> This is after they decide
> *unilaterally* that they want to give birth to the child. What's
> next? If the woman decides to abort the child, the man should pay?

Not necessarily... if they don't agree the man shouldn't pay, imo. If they
agree, they should share the cost.

> This is such an arrogant double standard from any woman.

How you present the scenario is, but that particular scenario is rarely so
black and white.

--
Jenn

[Checkmate]

Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate!

First, check out what Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. said:


>

<heh!> My work's just about done here...

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.]

"Jenn" <m...@noe.mail.com> wrote in message

news:jjtlao$i1h$1...@dont-email.me...

Makes zero difference as the man cannot get pregnant. Only the woman can
get pregnant so only the woman is responsible if she gets pregnant.
(barring rape, of course). You are STILL trying to have it both ways,
Jenn.

>> As for the father having to provide bone marrow (painful and
>> expensive) and a medical history (private and personal), the mother
>> should have gotten a marriage contract before she got pregnant. It's
>> ludicrous to think a man should have to release his medical
>> information to a bastard child the mother was irresponsible enough to
>> conceive.
>
> Both were irresponsible... the mother will incur a lifetime with the
> child.. the biological father should at the very least provide medical
> information and a few other things for being part and party to the
> conception. The legalities should be worked out with fairness for the
> sake of the childs future health, imo.

It is NOT irresponsible for a man to have sex with a woman who says yes!
It is a natural act. But, this natural act has physical consequences for
the woman - she might become pregnant. She knows it. It matters not that
the man knows it. She has given her permission so she bears 100% of the
responsibility for any baby that results. If she doesn't wish this to be
the case then get that marriage contract signed BEFORE she has sex with
the guy.

>> Again, it's a case of certain women wanting to have it both ways. They
>> want to be able to hop into bed with any man who strikes their fancy
>
> If a man is going to hop into bed with just any woman who is like that,
> then he is more than likely to have a similar character.

Again, men don't become pregnant. There is little or no motivation for
them NOT to have sex when the woman says, "Come, let's have sex." Since
the woman gives her permission and the man can't become pregnant and the
woman knows she might become pregnant, her giving the man permission (it's
100% up to her to say yes or no) means she must assume 100% responsibility
for any pregnancy outside of wedlock. This is from a principle's and
ethics standpoint - not from a civil or religious law standpoint. A
marriage contract will make all this unnecessary. It's so simple but
woman STILL want to be promiscuous unilaterally (its my body to do with
what I will) but, all of a sudden, when there are unlooked for
consequences (pregnancy) they seem to forget all about their demands for
unilateral decision-making.

Again, trying to have it both ways.

>> knowing full well pregnancy could result and they do this without a
>> marriage contract. Then they expect to enjoy some or all the benefits
>> of a marriage contract, after the fact.
>
> Marriage contracts are rarely about children, but it's not to say they
> couldn't be.

I disagree. Marriage contracts exist to a large extent to protect and
nurture the offspring.

>> This is after they decide
>> *unilaterally* that they want to give birth to the child. What's
>> next? If the woman decides to abort the child, the man should pay?
>
> Not necessarily... if they don't agree the man shouldn't pay, imo. If
> they agree, they should share the cost.

Good grief! And, I thought you were somewhat logical. There is NO logic at
all behind that statement. It's feminist CRAP! One-sided and lame! Why?

Because I have already shown using logic that the decision to copulate is
100% the woman's. I have also shown that when the woman bases her decision
on the fact that it is her body to do with as she wishes then that
statement also causes her to assume 100% of the consequences. But, now you
say an abortion that is agreed upon by both partners should be paid for by
both?? My gosh but that's insane from a logical standpoint.

"My right to choose abortion!" says the woman when the man doesn't want
the abortion.

"But, that baby has both our DNA, shouldn't I have some say in the
matter?" asks the man.

"You can go take a hike because it's my body and I'll do with it as I
wish: I don't want your fucking baby. I never expected to get pregnant!!!"
says the woman.

Then the woman goes ahead and gets the abortion. She would never consider
forcing the man to pay for part or all of it. To pay for killing his own
child. I don't think even the most rabid FemiNazi would think that.

But, how big a hypocrite does a woman have to be, if the man just happens
to agree he'd not be opposed to her having an abortion, to expect him to
share the cost? In the first case, her decision is 100% her's. ("Go to
hell, man!") In the second case it suddenly becomes 50% his? On the basis
of what? Because he doesn't wish to contest her abortion because he knows
to do so is futile?

OMG! You women are just such a waste of moral and ethical standards!

--
Sir Gregory

[Checkmate]

Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate!

First, check out what Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. said:


>

"Getting to K-N-O-W you... getting to know ALL a-BOUT you..."

Yep, almost done...

[PolishKnight]

In article <7sedneKcSpRIS_3S...@scnresearch.com>,
pandora <pan...@peak.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:23:10 -0400, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
>
> > "Checkmate" <Lunati...@The.Edge> wrote in message

> > news:MPG.29c9d07d3...@news.alt.net...

> >> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts
> >> by Checkmate!
> >>

> >> First, check out what Jenn said:

> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 3/13/2012 11:33 PM, Checkmate wrote:
> >>> > Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading
> >>> > posts by
> >>> > Checkmate!
> >>> >

> >>> > First, check out what Jenn said:

> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >> On 3/13/2012 12:41 AM, Checkmate wrote:
> >>> >>> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading
> >>> >>> posts by
> >>> >>> Checkmate!
> >>> >>>

> >>> >>> First, check out what Jenn said:

> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>> On 3/12/2012 11:19 PM, Checkmate wrote:
> >>> >>>>> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading
> >>> >>>>> posts by
> >>> >>>>> Checkmate!
> >>> >>>>>

> >>> >>>>> First, check out what Jenn said:

> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> On 3/12/2012 11:01 PM, Checkmate wrote:
> >>> >>>>>>> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when
> >>> >>>>>>> reading posts by
> >>> >>>>>>> Checkmate!
> >>> >>>>>>>

> >>> >>>>>>> First, check out what Jenn said:

> >>> >>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>> §ñühwö£f wrote:
> >>> >>>>>>>>> Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
> >>> >>>>>>>>>> "Jenn"<m...@noe.mail.com> wrote in message

> >>> >>>>>>>>>> news:jjl4pd$dgc$1...@dont-email.me...

> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> §nühw?£f wrote:
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:

> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Checkmate"<Lunati...@The.Edge> wrote in message
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:MPG.29c6e8805...@news.alt.net...

> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reading
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> posts by Checkmate!
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> First, check out what Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. said:
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Jenn"<n...@em.ail> wrote in message
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:jjjbf4$k9a$3...@dont-email.me...
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/11/2012 5:39 PM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [trim]
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And all of them are probably grotesque!
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His daughter is quite beautiful!
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yah, I hear that all the time. Every parent thinks
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their own
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kids are the
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most beautiful in the whole world even if they are
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grotesque to
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everybody
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else.
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How come you don't have any kids, Gweggie?
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> None of your beeswax!
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Because every once in a while...karma plays out for the
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> benefit of
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> all mankind.
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <nods>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> Seems I asked you a while back if you had kids, snu ...
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> and got no
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> answer.
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>> The snuwolf has cubs!
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>> Idiots...what kind of person would bring a child into such a
> >>> >>>>>>>>> fucked up
> >>> >>>>>>>>> world as this? Humans should have stopped breeding when the
> >>> >>>>>>>>> Earths
> >>> >>>>>>>>> population hit 1 billion.
> >>> >>>>>>>>> Only selfish or ignorant people are still pumping out
> >>> >>>>>>>>> sprogs.
> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>> www.zpg.org
> >>> >>>>>>>>> (zero population growth)
> >>> >>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>> Breeding?
> >>> >>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>> He's talking about sex, Jenn.
> >>> >>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> ya think? lol
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> I'm pretty sure. Speaking of sex, did you read Greg's views on
> >>> >>>>> getting
> >>> >>>>> women pregnant and shirking all responsibility for the kids? I
> >>> >>>>> told you
> >>> >>>>> he was "special"!
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>> You mean the hippy free love and sex thing? It was a different
> >>> >>>> world
> >>> >>>> back then.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Yes it was. Apparently if a woman practiced "free love," she was
> >>> >>> a slut
> >>> >>> and it was her responsibility to take care of any kids if she got
> >>> >>> pregnant. Greg feels that he would have no responsibility for any
> >>> >>> form
> >>> >>> of support because it was her fault for not using birth control,
> >>> >>> so he
> >>> >>> was free to just walk away.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >> well.. I kind of agree with that assessment of women who do that
> >>> >> sort of
> >>> >> thing ... BUT, the men who make them sluts are just as bad, imo...
> >>> >> man
> >>> >> sluts? Women should know better than to think they can play and
> >>> >> not
> >>> >> have to pay the consequences.
> >>> >
> >>> > You're starting to sound a lot like one of Greg's many socks, Jenn.

> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> I don't even know Greg .. just chatted with him a few times like you.

> >>> If women are going to give *it* away to just every man they meet, then

> >>> why shouldn't they be responsible their actions? Just seems logical
> >>> to me.
> >>
> >> Both should be responsible for the consequences. Just curious... as a
> >> woman, do you find it insulting that women who have sex with a lot of
> >> men
> >> are referred to as whores, while men who have sex with a lot of women
> >> are
> >> called "Playas"?
> >
> >

> > Both should be responsible for the consequences of a woman unilaterally
> > giving it away?
> >

> > And you call me dumb? Bwahhahahahah. Jenn is 100% correct and you are
> > totally wrong. You've been brainwashed by the liberal "it takes a
> > village" mentality. You don't see that an individual has certain
> > individual responsibilities and should accept the consequences of his or
> > her actions.
> >
> > Look at it this way. You decide, all by yourself, that you'd like to eat
> > 10,000 calories a day. And, you want it to be a quality experience so
> > you pick the finest restaurant and eat and drink there to the tune of
> > 10,000 calories a day. Nine month's later you weight 500 pounds. Are you
> > seriously going to claim it's half the restaurants responsibility for
> > your obesity? Are you going to say they provided the food so the obesity
> > is half their fault so they should pay your medical bills?
> >
> > Freaking lunatic moron!
>
>
> One doesn't *eat* sperm. If YOU don't want to have kids, keep your sperm
> to yourself.
>
> "Do you know where your sperm are?"

While this is the law, it sadly reflects te modern morality of our
times. By the same token, if you don't want your car smashed into or
robbed (or worse) by the spawn of unwed mother children in unwed mother
neighborhoods, you should avoid such neighborhoods entirely.

In other words, Marg is saying that society allows women to exploit
children like chattel if men trust them. And she's right.

So that said, the reaction of soc.men in regarding modern western women
as untrustworthy isn't kooky at all but rather common sense.

Don't forget to set your (husband's) car alarm, Marg!

regards,
PolishKnight

[pandora]

On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 20:28:49 -0400, PolishKnight wrote:


> Don't forget to set your (husband's) car alarm, Marg!

Nice threat there, Mark.


> regards,
> PolishKnight





--
http://www.gramsattic.org

[PolishKnight]

In article <pnf4m7lkfgdlpd4n7...@4ax.com>,

Kenneth, there's nothing to puzzle about. These women want to do as
they please without responsibility while men need to have all the
responsibilities because if there isn't a sugar daddy to pay for
everything, then the party would be over.

It's been a long time since we engaged in the original C4M discussion.
Back then, the game was to pretend that babies popped out of men's
penises (or penii?) and children were "co-created" at conception. Then,
at that magic moment, they went into limbo where they could be either
defined away by the mother as mere "blobs of cells" or worshipped as
little precious "babies" in her womb and get her sainthood for gestating
them (even if she smoked and did crack). Then, when they popped out of
the womb, then she would be "responsible" for them which meant cashing
child-support or welfare checks.

Except... since then there is the idea of "safe havens" which basically
means that so many of these mommy dearests are throwing babies in trash
bins that the government had to spend millions to protect them from the
women themselves.

In other words, Marg has zero moral standards for women.

regards,
PolishKnight

[Checkmate]

Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate!

Have you ever polished your bishop?

[Jenn]

On 3/15/2012 6:06 PM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
> "Jenn" <m...@noe.mail.com> wrote in message
> news:jjtlao$i1h$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:

>>> So you think the mother, who claims a one hundred percent right to do
>>> what she will with her body, deserves, when her body produces a child,
>>> some form of monetary payment to cover birthing expenses she KNEW she
>>> would incur and she wants the sperm donor to pay? Good grief!!!
>>
>> They both knew when they did the deed there was a possibility of
>> conception regardless of method of birth control used because nothing
>> is 100%.
>
> Makes zero difference as the man cannot get pregnant.

Neither can the woman unless the man participates.

> Only the woman can
> get pregnant so only the woman is responsible if she gets pregnant.
> (barring rape, of course). You are STILL trying to have it both ways, Jenn.

Not really. It's logical to conclude if 2 people participate in an
action that results in a combined outcome, they both are responsible for
that outcome. Wouldn't you agree?

>>> As for the father having to provide bone marrow (painful and
>>> expensive) and a medical history (private and personal), the mother
>>> should have gotten a marriage contract before she got pregnant. It's
>>> ludicrous to think a man should have to release his medical
>>> information to a bastard child the mother was irresponsible enough to
>>> conceive.


>> Both were irresponsible... the mother will incur a lifetime with the
>> child.. the biological father should at the very least provide medical
>> information and a few other things for being part and party to the
>> conception. The legalities should be worked out with fairness for the
>> sake of the childs future health, imo.


> It is NOT irresponsible for a man to have sex with a woman who says yes!

That is not a true statement unless one bases their moral compass on
moral relativism.

> It is a natural act.

So is pregnancy.

> But, this natural act has physical consequences for
> the woman - she might become pregnant. She knows it.

It has physical consequences for the man involved, too. He has to
deposit bodily fluid for the woman to conceive. Individual bodily fluids
have laws that apply to them when passed from one individual to another
and the DNA of each individual is attributed to it's owner. If you can
have sex w/o depositing bodily fluids, then, yes, you have no
responsibility if the woman conceives, however illogical that sounds it
is how laws view such matters.


<snip>

>>> Again, it's a case of certain women wanting to have it both ways. They
>>> want to be able to hop into bed with any man who strikes their fancy
>>
>> If a man is going to hop into bed with just any woman who is like
>> that, then he is more than likely to have a similar character.


> Again, men don't become pregnant. There is little or no motivation for
> them NOT to have sex when the woman says, "Come, let's have sex."

Each person, including men are controlled by their own personal moral
compass. Wouldn't you agree? A man can just say "no" regardless of the
invitation.

<snip>




--
Jenn

[Jenn]

On 3/15/2012 7:35 PM, PolishKnight wrote:
> Then, when they popped out of
> the womb, then she would be "responsible" for them which meant cashing
> child-support or welfare checks.
>
> Except... since then there is the idea of "safe havens" which basically
> means that so many of these mommy dearests are throwing babies in trash
> bins that the government had to spend millions to protect them from the
> women themselves.

Bravo! I agree totally on these particular points! Well said.

--
Jenn

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.]

"Jenn" <n...@em.ail> wrote in message news:jju689$e2n$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 3/15/2012 6:06 PM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
>> "Jenn" <m...@noe.mail.com> wrote in message
>> news:jjtlao$i1h$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
>
>>>> So you think the mother, who claims a one hundred percent right to do
>>>> what she will with her body, deserves, when her body produces a
>>>> child,
>>>> some form of monetary payment to cover birthing expenses she KNEW she
>>>> would incur and she wants the sperm donor to pay? Good grief!!!
>>>
>>> They both knew when they did the deed there was a possibility of
>>> conception regardless of method of birth control used because nothing
>>> is 100%.
>>
>> Makes zero difference as the man cannot get pregnant.
>
> Neither can the woman unless the man participates.

Participation does not mean responsibility. For example, a man
participates in a tennis match. An irate fan throws a beer bottle and hits
him on the head knocking him out. Is the tennis player responsible for his
injury? No he is not. It's the same thing if a woman copulates with a man.
The man can't get pregnant just like the irate man can't throw the beer
bottle at himself.

You WANT to see responsibility where there is none because you're a woman.
You don't want to take 100% responsibility for a decision that is 100%
your own.

>> Only the woman can
>> get pregnant so only the woman is responsible if she gets pregnant.
>> (barring rape, of course). You are STILL trying to have it both ways,
>> Jenn.
>
>
> Not really. It's logical to conclude if 2 people participate in an
> action that results in a combined outcome, they both are responsible for
> that outcome. Wouldn't you agree?

It is illogical to conclude that if two people participate in an action
they are both equally responsible when the action is either sanctioned or
not 100% by the female. If a woman says "NO" then the action doesn't occur
(barring rape). If the woman says "YES" then the action is 100%
sanctioned by her and her alone. It's not the act that matters. It's the
consent for the act to take place. The woman is 100% responsible for
giving or withholding consent. If her 100% consent results in pregnancy
then she should be willing to accept 100% of those consequences without
trying to assign a certain amount of responsiblity to the man. Again, I'm
speaking strictly from a logical standpoint.

>>>> As for the father having to provide bone marrow (painful and
>>>> expensive) and a medical history (private and personal), the mother
>>>> should have gotten a marriage contract before she got pregnant. It's
>>>> ludicrous to think a man should have to release his medical
>>>> information to a bastard child the mother was irresponsible enough to
>>>> conceive.
>
>
>>> Both were irresponsible... the mother will incur a lifetime with the
>>> child.. the biological father should at the very least provide medical
>>> information and a few other things for being part and party to the
>>> conception. The legalities should be worked out with fairness for the
>>> sake of the childs future health, imo.
>
>
>> It is NOT irresponsible for a man to have sex with a woman who says
>> yes!
>
> That is not a true statement unless one bases their moral compass on
> moral relativism.

Morality is a strawman argument, Jenn. Don't forget this a logical
discussion. Morality can easily be used to muddle the argument as can
civil law but neither matters in a logical discussion.

>
>
>> It is a natural act.
>
> So is pregnancy.
>
>
>> But, this natural act has physical consequences for
>> the woman - she might become pregnant. She knows it.
>
>
> It has physical consequences for the man involved, too. He has to
> deposit bodily fluid for the woman to conceive. Individual bodily fluids
> have laws that apply to them when passed from one individual to another
> and the DNA of each individual is attributed to it's owner. If you can
> have sex w/o depositing bodily fluids, then, yes, you have no
> responsibility if the woman conceives, however illogical that sounds it
> is how laws view such matters.

Another straw man argument as the physical consequences do not end up
getting the man pregnant. A receiver who can get pregnant is like a
baseball catcher. If the catcher mishandles a pitch and a run scores the
catcher is assigned the error 100%. It would be illigocal to assign the
error to the pitcher. The woman, being the catcher, has the error assigned
100% to her because she's the one who gets pregnant just as the catcher is
the one who muffed the pitch.

The woman is 100% responsible for her own birth control. The man has
nothing to do with a woman's birth control.

>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>>>> Again, it's a case of certain women wanting to have it both ways.
>>>> They
>>>> want to be able to hop into bed with any man who strikes their fancy
>>>
>>> If a man is going to hop into bed with just any woman who is like
>>> that, then he is more than likely to have a similar character.
>
>
>> Again, men don't become pregnant. There is little or no motivation for
>> them NOT to have sex when the woman says, "Come, let's have sex."
>
> Each person, including men are controlled by their own personal moral
> compass. Wouldn't you agree? A man can just say "no" regardless of the
> invitation.

Morality? C'mon, Jenn, please stick to a logical argument. The fact that a
man can just say no means nothing as a non-act results. One cannot use a
scenario where there is no act to justify results of an act.

--
Sir Gregory

[%]

why would you hit a woman in the head with ,
a beer bottle during sex , oh i forgot i'm talking to fred

[Jenn]

Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
> "Jenn" <n...@em.ail> wrote in message news:jju689$e2n$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 3/15/2012 6:06 PM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
>>> "Jenn" <m...@noe.mail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:jjtlao$i1h$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
>>
>>>>> So you think the mother, who claims a one hundred percent right
>>>>> to do what she will with her body, deserves, when her body
>>>>> produces a child,
>>>>> some form of monetary payment to cover birthing expenses she KNEW
>>>>> she would incur and she wants the sperm donor to pay? Good
>>>>> grief!!!
>>>>
>>>> They both knew when they did the deed there was a possibility of
>>>> conception regardless of method of birth control used because
>>>> nothing is 100%.
>>>
>>> Makes zero difference as the man cannot get pregnant.
>>
>> Neither can the woman unless the man participates.
>
> Participation does not mean responsibility. For example, a man
> participates in a tennis match. An irate fan throws a beer bottle and
> hits him on the head knocking him out. Is the tennis player
> responsible for his injury? No he is not.

The irate fan committed assault with intent to do harm on an innocent
person, which is on the books as a crime.

> It's the same thing if a
> woman copulates with a man.

Hardly ... consensual sex is not a crime. Assault up side the head with a
beer bottle is a crime.

> The man can't get pregnant just like the
> irate man can't throw the beer bottle at himself.

Irrelevant comparison.

> You WANT to see responsibility where there is none because you're a
> woman.

haha Not so .. I want to see responsibility required of everyone in every
situtation, not just gender specific situations.

<snip>

>>
>> Not really. It's logical to conclude if 2 people participate in an
>> action that results in a combined outcome, they both are responsible
>> for that outcome. Wouldn't you agree?

> It is illogical to conclude that if two people participate in an
> action they are both equally responsible when the action is either
> sanctioned or not 100% by the female.

Both parties who participate in any action are equally responsible for their
individual contribution to the end result regardless of gender.

> If a woman says "NO" then the
> action doesn't occur (barring rape). If the woman says "YES" then
> the action is 100% sanctioned by her and her alone.

The man also is implicitely saying "YES", therefore, also 100% sanctioning
the same action.

> It's not the act
> that matters. It's the consent for the act to take place.

Both parties implicitely sanction an action if/when they both acknowledge
any affirmative action and proceed with that action.

> The woman
> is 100% responsible for giving or withholding consent.

Just as the man is also 100% responsible for giving and withholding his

consent.


> If her 100%
> consent results in pregnancy then she should be willing to accept
> 100% of those consequences without trying to assign a certain amount
> of responsiblity to the man. Again, I'm speaking strictly from a
> logical standpoint.

Logically speaking, using the same logic you just used ... the same result
should be expected from everyone regardless of gender.

>>>>> As for the father having to provide bone marrow (painful and
>>>>> expensive) and a medical history (private and personal), the
>>>>> mother should have gotten a marriage contract before she got
>>>>> pregnant. It's ludicrous to think a man should have to release
>>>>> his medical information to a bastard child the mother was
>>>>> irresponsible enough to conceive.
>>
>>
>>>> Both were irresponsible... the mother will incur a lifetime with
>>>> the child.. the biological father should at the very least provide
>>>> medical information and a few other things for being part and
>>>> party to the conception. The legalities should be worked out with
>>>> fairness for the sake of the childs future health, imo.
>>
>>
>>> It is NOT irresponsible for a man to have sex with a woman who says
>>> yes!
>>
>> That is not a true statement unless one bases their moral compass on
>> moral relativism.
>
> Morality is a strawman argument, Jenn. Don't forget this a logical
> discussion. Morality can easily be used to muddle the argument as can
> civil law but neither matters in a logical discussion.

You opened the door for the addition of morality in this discussion long ago
when you introduced the idea of 'responsibility/irresponsibility' and made a
moral judgement/conclusion based solely on gender.

<snip>

>>>> If a man is going to hop into bed with just any woman who is like
>>>> that, then he is more than likely to have a similar character.
>>
>>
>>> Again, men don't become pregnant. There is little or no motivation
>>> for them NOT to have sex when the woman says, "Come, let's have
>>> sex."
>>
>> Each person, including men are controlled by their own personal moral
>> compass. Wouldn't you agree? A man can just say "no" regardless of
>> the invitation.

> Morality? C'mon, Jenn, please stick to a logical argument.

Morality was introduced to this discussion when you began to argue your
premise soley based on gender.

<snip>

BTW, thank you for this extremely interesting discussion! It is refreshing
to interact on a topic intellectually with any one person who can stick to
the topic despite not agreeing on every point, and not resort to ad homs and
cursing every other sentence. Much appreciated! :-)
--
Jenn

[Jenn]

Jenn wrote:
> Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:

> Both parties implicitely sanction an action if/when they both

sorry .. this paragraph got past my spell check.. that should be
*implicitly*

--
Jenn

[%]

i have the # 1 answer

keep your clothes on and no one will get pregnant

[Checkmate]

Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate!

First, check out what Jenn said:


>

Was he everything I promised you he'd be, Jenn?

[Checkmate]

Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate!

keep your mouth shut and no one will get ridiculed

[%]

Checkmate wrote:
> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts
> by Checkmate!
>
> First, check out what % said:
>
>
>>
>> Jenn wrote:
>>> Jenn wrote:
>>>> Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
>>>
>>>> Both parties implicitely sanction an action if/when they both
>>>
>>> sorry .. this paragraph got past my spell check.. that should be
>>> *implicitly*
>>
>>
>>
>> i have the # 1 answer
>>
>> keep your clothes on and no one will get pregnant
>
> keep your mouth shut and no one will get ridiculed

its not my fault people turn your asinine comments into ridicule

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.]

"Jenn" <m...@noe.mail.com> wrote in message

news:jjvq4r$56v$1...@dont-email.me...

> Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
>> "Jenn" <n...@em.ail> wrote in message news:jju689$e2n$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 3/15/2012 6:06 PM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
>>>> "Jenn" <m...@noe.mail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:jjtlao$i1h$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>> Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> So you think the mother, who claims a one hundred percent right
>>>>>> to do what she will with her body, deserves, when her body
>>>>>> produces a child,
>>>>>> some form of monetary payment to cover birthing expenses she KNEW
>>>>>> she would incur and she wants the sperm donor to pay? Good
>>>>>> grief!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> They both knew when they did the deed there was a possibility of
>>>>> conception regardless of method of birth control used because
>>>>> nothing is 100%.
>>>>
>>>> Makes zero difference as the man cannot get pregnant.
>>>
>>> Neither can the woman unless the man participates.
>>
>> Participation does not mean responsibility. For example, a man
>> participates in a tennis match. An irate fan throws a beer bottle and
>> hits him on the head knocking him out. Is the tennis player
>> responsible for his injury? No he is not.
>
> The irate fan committed assault with intent to do harm on an innocent
> person, which is on the books as a crime.

That's a non sequitur, Jenn. You simply have to do better than that. When
you respond to a point try to understand the point so you can respond
somewhat intelligently.

>> It's the same thing if a
>> woman copulates with a man.
>
> Hardly ... consensual sex is not a crime. Assault up side the head with
> a beer bottle is a crime.

Another non sequitur. It's apparent you didn't even try to understand the
analogy.

>> The man can't get pregnant just like the
>> irate man can't throw the beer bottle at himself.
>
> Irrelevant comparison.

Why? And, don't say it's because it's a crime because that dog don't hunt.

>> You WANT to see responsibility where there is none because you're a
>> woman.
>
> haha Not so .. I want to see responsibility required of everyone in
> every situtation, not just gender specific situations.

Negative! You want to see SHARED responsibility which is a stupid, liberal
concept. There is no shared responsibility for a unilateral decision like
copulation. NONE!

>
> <snip>
>>>
>>> Not really. It's logical to conclude if 2 people participate in an
>>> action that results in a combined outcome, they both are responsible
>>> for that outcome. Wouldn't you agree?
>
>> It is illogical to conclude that if two people participate in an
>> action they are both equally responsible when the action is either
>> sanctioned or not 100% by the female.
>
> Both parties who participate in any action are equally responsible for
> their individual contribution to the end result regardless of gender.

Simply not so. I can give you example after example where that's simply
not true when it comes to *decisions* and that's what we're talking about
here -- the decision to have sex which is 100% the woman's decision. Any
consequences of a unilateral decision like that rests solely on the
shoulders of the person making that decision. Here are a few examples:

A man makes a decision to read a book. He ends up disliking the book. Does
the book share equal responsibility for that dislike?

A woman makes a decision to ride her bicycle. She fails to see or ignores
a danger which is sand on the pavement. She falls and breaks her arm. Does
the sand share equal responsibility for her fall?

So, I suppose you're now going to say - well, sand and books are inanimate
objects so that's an invalid analogy. So get this:

A woman has a baby. The woman decides to give the baby a bath. Her phone
rings and she goes into another room to answer it. The baby drowns before
she gets back. Does the baby share the responsibility for it's death? I
doubt even you, with all your illogic, will say the baby shares the
responsibility.

>> If a woman says "NO" then the
>> action doesn't occur (barring rape). If the woman says "YES" then
>> the action is 100% sanctioned by her and her alone.
>
> The man also is implicitely saying "YES", therefore, also 100%
> sanctioning the same action.

But, the man can't say "yes" if the woman says "no" so what the man says
*after the fact*
has no bearing on the action. Girl, you sure are grasping for straws.

>> It's not the act
>> that matters. It's the consent for the act to take place.
>
> Both parties implicitely sanction an action if/when they both
> acknowledge any affirmative action and proceed with that action.

Sorry, but only ONE person, the female sanctions the act. Without that
sanction the man can't proceed. When a man can't proceed, that alone
should tell you that it's 100% the woman's decision, thus it's 100% her
responsibility for any consequences that occur due to her taking the 100%
unilateral decision which excludes the man. If she says "yes" it's the
same thing. 100% her's to accept full responsibility for her decision. How
many times am I going to have to repeat that it's the act that matters
respecting pregnancy and it's the woman who says yes or no to the act?

>
>
>> The woman
>> is 100% responsible for giving or withholding consent.
>
> Just as the man is also 100% responsible for giving and withholding his
> consent.

A secondary, after the fact (the woman's initial consent), decision has no
bearing on the initial decision. That's why it's called *after the fact*.
The fact is the woman gives consent. She's does that all by herself in the
dank, dark recesses of her skull. She should be logical enough to
understand that which she does unilaterally (the decision to copulate)
should it result in pregnancy is 100% hers to take full responsibility
for.

>
>
>> If her 100%
>> consent results in pregnancy then she should be willing to accept
>> 100% of those consequences without trying to assign a certain amount
>> of responsiblity to the man. Again, I'm speaking strictly from a
>> logical standpoint.
>
> Logically speaking, using the same logic you just used ... the same
> result should be expected from everyone regardless of gender.

Again, the man cannot become pregnant so his after the fact decision to
have sex with a woman who gives him unilateral consent has no bearing on
her decision. You seem to want to put the cart before the horse. That's
dumb and you know it.

,snip>

>> Morality is a strawman argument, Jenn. Don't forget this a logical
>> discussion. Morality can easily be used to muddle the argument as can
>> civil law but neither matters in a logical discussion.
>
> You opened the door for the addition of morality in this discussion long
> ago when you introduced the idea of 'responsibility/irresponsibility'
> and made a moral judgement/conclusion based solely on gender.
>

Only to debunk your attempting to use it as a strawman argument. And, I'm
making definitive statements on the basis of the logical argument of
accepting responsibility for a decision one make unilaterally - all the
responsibility since all the decision is made by the woman. I have
repeated over and over again that morality is a non-factor. I've stated
that ethics is the factor behind accepting a logic based consequence.
Being a woman, you'll never allow yourself to accept the logic of it
because the logic runs counter to your *feelings* about shared
responsibility. "Oh, it just isn't fair," she whines".

> <snip>
>>>>> If a man is going to hop into bed with just any woman who is like
>>>>> that, then he is more than likely to have a similar character.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Again, men don't become pregnant. There is little or no motivation
>>>> for them NOT to have sex when the woman says, "Come, let's have
>>>> sex."
>>>
>>> Each person, including men are controlled by their own personal moral
>>> compass. Wouldn't you agree? A man can just say "no" regardless of
>>> the invitation.
>
>> Morality? C'mon, Jenn, please stick to a logical argument.
>
> Morality was introduced to this discussion when you began to argue your
> premise soley based on gender.

Negative. Morality has nothing to do with gender. Morality is a concept
independent of gender. And, I have repeated over and over again that your
attempting to insert morality into a logical argument is is a non
sequitur. Yet, here you are again attempting to use it to argue against
the logic of a 100% decision by one person means that person bears 100% of
the responsibility for the consequences of that decision. I'm not going to
let you get away with more obfuscation, Jenn.

> <snip>
>
> BTW, thank you for this extremely interesting discussion! It is
> refreshing to interact on a topic intellectually with any one person who
> can stick to the topic despite not agreeing on every point, and not
> resort to ad homs and cursing every other sentence. Much appreciated!
> :-)

You're welcome.

And, thank you, too. Although, I am becoming frustrated at your refusal to
stick to logic and to present a logic-based rebuttal. Until you do, you
haven't swayed me (and hopefully any lurkers) into changing our minds.

Here is a logic-based summary of my contentions:

1) a woman has a 100% say in any decision to copulate (barring rape)
(agree or disagree)

2) if she says "no", there are no reproductive consequences for her
decision
(agree or disagree)

3) if she says "yes" there are reproductive consequences for her
decision -
she could become pregnant
(agree or disagree)

4) the woman, having a 100% say in the decision to copulate,
should logically be willing to bear 100% of the reproductive
consequences.
(agree or disagree)

--
Sir Gregory

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.]

"Jenn" <m...@noe.mail.com> wrote in message

news:jjvq8c$5vj$1...@dont-email.me...

No problem. When typing a fast discussion a few errors are bound to creep
in from time to time. . .

[%]

please be advised that checkmate is over 60 years old ,
and likes to smooch necks that have adam's apples

[Aardvark]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 14:48:10 -0400, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:

> <SNIP>

Rationalise all you want. Your misogyny will *never* be excused.


--
"Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved
in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee".
-John Donne (1572-1631)

[Jordon]

Jenn wrote:

> Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
>> If a woman says "NO" then the
>> action doesn't occur (barring rape). If the woman says "YES"
>> then the action is 100% sanctioned by her and her alone.
>
> The man also is implicitely saying "YES", therefore, also 100%
> sanctioning the same action.
>
>
>> It's not the act
>> that matters. It's the consent for the act to take place.
>
> Both parties implicitely sanction an action if/when they both
> acknowledge any affirmative action and proceed with that action.
>
>
>> The woman
>> is 100% responsible for giving or withholding consent.
>
> Just as the man is also 100% responsible for giving and
> withholding his consent.

Hall's argument is laughable but yours only works some of the time.

Is the man equally responsible if the wowman says: "It's OK, I can't
get pregnant", but then does. I've heard those words a few times. Or
if an agreement is made in advance that if she gets pregnant she'll
have an abortion, but when she gets pregnant, she doesn't?

Man accepts 50% of the responsibility? Does he need to come equipped
with a written contract?

[§ñühwö£f]

Aardvark wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 14:48:10 -0400, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
>
>> <SNIP>
>
> Rationalise all you want. Your misogyny will *never* be excused.
>
>

Neils history of being in the he-man woman haters club is well known.

:)

--
http://www.privacySOS.org | www.extinctioncrisis.org
www.snuhwolf.9f.com|www.savewolves.org
_____ ____ ____ __ /\_/\ __ _ ______ _____
/ __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \ \ __\
_\ \/ / /_/ / _ / \ / \ \| \| \ \_\ \ \__\ _\
/___/_/|_/\____/_//_/ \_@_/ \__|\__|\____/\____\_\

[§ñühwö£f]

Dave Chappelle already covered this issue:
<http://www.tv.com/shows/chappelles-show/ep-204-307218/>

Good luck finding the video clip in question though..."The Love Contract".

Fucking Viacom snecked it from the youtoobz...

[Aardvark]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 13:35:02 -0600, §ñühwö£f wrote:

> Aardvark wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 14:48:10 -0400, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
>>
>>> <SNIP>
>>
>> Rationalise all you want. Your misogyny will *never* be excused.
>>
>>
> Neils history of being in the he-man woman haters club is well known.
>
> :)

So *that's* what soc.men is all about? Pussies who were emotionally hurt
by a woman or women once or more and have all got together to have a pity
party, making themselves feel better by denigrating the fairer sex en
masse?

Gotcha, mate.

Now that I know, I'll never have to go there to find out.

[§ñühwö£f]

Aardvark wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 13:35:02 -0600, §ñühwö£f wrote:
>
>> Aardvark wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 14:48:10 -0400, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
>>>
>>>> <SNIP>
>>> Rationalise all you want. Your misogyny will *never* be excused.
>>>
>>>
>> Neils history of being in the he-man woman haters club is well known.
>>
>> :)
>
> So *that's* what soc.men is all about? Pussies who were emotionally hurt
> by a woman or women once or more and have all got together to have a pity
> party, making themselves feel better by denigrating the fairer sex en
> masse?
>
> Gotcha, mate.
>
> Now that I know, I'll never have to go there to find out.
>

And closet cases who've yet to face their own sexuality, but yeah.

Spot on.

[Checkmate]

Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate!

First, check out what Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. said:


>

Greg, when you were gone a couple weeks ago, were you in the hospital for
a head injury by any chance?

[Checkmate]

Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate!

First, check out what Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. said:


>

> "Jenn" <m...@noe.mail.com> wrote in message
> news:jjvq8c$5vj$1...@dont-email.me...
> > Jenn wrote:
> >> Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
> >
> >> Both parties implicitely sanction an action if/when they both
> >
> > sorry .. this paragraph got past my spell check.. that should be
> > *implicitly*
>
>

> No plobrem. When typong a fat disgusting a few erorrs are bound to peep
> in from time too time. . .


Do tell...

[Checkmate]

Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate!

First, check out what §ñühwö£f said:


>
> Aardvark wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 14:48:10 -0400, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
> >
> >> <SNIP>
> >
> > Rationalise all you want. Your misogyny will *never* be excused.
> >
> >
> Neils history of being in the he-man woman haters club is well known.
>
> :)

...but if they've got a dick, it's all good.

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.]

"Aardvark" <aard...@aardvark.uk.tc> wrote in message
news:jk03t1$n1h$4...@dont-email.me...

> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 14:48:10 -0400, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
>
>> <SNIP>
>
> Rationalise all you want. Your misogyny will *never* be excused.

I don't hate women so I don't need to be excused.

I do hate illogical arguments based upon feelings no matter the gender. It
just so happens that women's arguments, in general, are more
feelings-based rather than logic-based. It's exceedingly difficult to get
a logical "if/then" argument across to a typical woman because they tend
to reject cold hard facts.

*If* a woman unilaterally makes the decision to copulate with a fertile
man, *then* that unilateral decision makes her 100% responsible for the
consequences of that decision. This means she's 100% responsible for her
birth control succeed or fail and any pregnancy because it's a consequence
of her decision to copulate.

The converse would be: *If* a woman unilaterally makes the decision NOT to
copulate with a fertile man *then* that unilateral decision makes her 100%
responsible for the consequences of that decision which will be that she
is not going to become pregnant. Saying no is an infallible means of birth
control.

Would she even consider telling the man he is 50% responsible for her not
becoming pregnant? Of course not. So, if she's logical how can she say the
man is 50% responsible for the first if/then situation where she becomes
pregnant?


The above are infallible if/then arguments based upon logic. The only way
to refute them is to argue against them based upon logic and logic alone.
Any attempt to inject morality, fairness or feelings into the argument
against is a non sequitur.

--
Sir Gregory

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.]

"Checkmate" <Lunati...@The.Edge> wrote in message

news:MPG.29cd3c115...@news.alt.net...

> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
> Checkmate!
>
> First, check out what Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. said:
>
>
>>
>> "Jenn" <m...@noe.mail.com> wrote in message
>> news:jjvq8c$5vj$1...@dont-email.me...
>> > Jenn wrote:
>> >> Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
>> >
>> >> Both parties implicitely sanction an action if/when they both
>> >
>> > sorry .. this paragraph got past my spell check.. that should be
>> > *implicitly*
>>
>>
>> No plobrem. When typong a fat disgusting a few erorrs are bound to peep
>> in from time too time. . .
>
>
> Do tell...

Do suck my dick!

[Jenn]

Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
> "Jenn" <m...@noe.mail.com> wrote in message

> news:jjvq4r$56v$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:

<snip>

>
>>> The man can't get pregnant just like the
>>> irate man can't throw the beer bottle at himself.
>>
>> Irrelevant comparison.

> Why? And, don't say it's because it's a crime because that dog don't
> hunt.

You ruled out rape, which is a crime, then you used a crime as a parallel to
attempt to prove your conclusion not involving any crime. Ergo, your
attempt to use that comparison is irrelevant to the discussion.

>>> You WANT to see responsibility where there is none because you're a
>>> woman.
>>
>> haha Not so .. I want to see responsibility required of everyone in
>> every situtation, not just gender specific situations.

> Negative! You want to see SHARED responsibility which is a stupid,
> liberal concept. There is no shared responsibility for a unilateral
> decision like copulation. NONE!

Who is responsibile for the little swimmers that fertilize the egg?

When you introduce *responsibility* into a discussion, you are introducing a
*moral concept*, therefore, *shared responsibility* is also a moral concept
that becomes valid in this discussion.

>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> Not really. It's logical to conclude if 2 people participate in an
>>>> action that results in a combined outcome, they both are
>>>> responsible for that outcome. Wouldn't you agree?
>>
>>> It is illogical to conclude that if two people participate in an
>>> action they are both equally responsible when the action is either
>>> sanctioned or not 100% by the female.
>>
>> Both parties who participate in any action are equally responsible
>> for their individual contribution to the end result regardless of
>> gender.


> Simply not so. I can give you example after example where that's
> simply not true when it comes to *decisions* and that's what we're
> talking about here --

We could begin another discussion on just that topic alone. I'd love it! :D

> the decision to have sex which is 100% the
> woman's decision. Any consequences of a unilateral decision like that
> rests solely on the shoulders of the person making that decision.

Unless the woman is having sex with just herself, then the act would also
include the other participating party, in this case the man, at which point
both participating individuals BOTH unilaterally make a decision that rests
on their individual shoulders.

<snip>

>>> If a woman says "NO" then the
>>> action doesn't occur (barring rape). If the woman says "YES" then
>>> the action is 100% sanctioned by her and her alone.
>>
>> The man also is implicitely saying "YES", therefore, also 100%
>> sanctioning the same action.

> But, the man can't say "yes" if the woman says "no"

That is a faulty statement. The man CAN indeed say *YES* even if the woman
says *NO*

> so what the man
> says *after the fact*
> has no bearing on the action. Girl, you sure are grasping for straws.

<smile> Not really. I'm just analyzing each of your statements sentence
by sentence to determine if they are true or not.

>>> It's not the act
>>> that matters. It's the consent for the act to take place.
>>
>> Both parties implicitely sanction an action if/when they both
>> acknowledge any affirmative action and proceed with that action.


> Sorry, but only ONE person, the female sanctions the act. Without that
> sanction the man can't proceed.

Again a faulty statement. A man *can* proceed regardless of what the female
sanctions.


<snip>

>>> If her 100%
>>> consent results in pregnancy then she should be willing to accept
>>> 100% of those consequences without trying to assign a certain amount
>>> of responsiblity to the man. Again, I'm speaking strictly from a
>>> logical standpoint.
>>
>> Logically speaking, using the same logic you just used ... the same
>> result should be expected from everyone regardless of gender.


> Again, the man cannot become pregnant so his after the fact decision
> to have sex with a woman who gives him unilateral consent has no
> bearing on her decision. You seem to want to put the cart before the
> horse. That's dumb and you know it.

You're premise that "the man can't become pregnant" is irrelevant to your
conclusion that only the woman is responsible for the outcome. IOW, your
entire argument is non sequitor, but it is an interesting discussion to say
the least! :-D

<snip>


>> BTW, thank you for this extremely interesting discussion! It is
>> refreshing to interact on a topic intellectually with any one person
>> who can stick to the topic despite not agreeing on every point, and
>> not resort to ad homs and cursing every other sentence. Much
>> appreciated! :-)

> You're welcome.
>
> And, thank you, too. Although, I am becoming frustrated at your
> refusal to stick to logic and to present a logic-based rebuttal.
> Until you do, you haven't swayed me (and hopefully any lurkers) into
> changing our minds.

I have no intention of swaying you or anyone else into changing your minds.
I am just enjoying an intelligent conversation/light debate on a topic I
find interesting. Exercising the mind is a lot of fun especially when I get
to have discussions like this that aren't fueled by anger or malicious digs.
I'm impressed. Most people I've engaged like this get angry and the
discussion suffers and the topic never is given a chance to go anywhere.

Thank you! :-)
--
Jenn

[Jenn]

IF/Then statements work wonderfully in programming or even mathematical
formulas, but when discussing the topic of *responsibility* you are trying
to use a moral premise that is emotionally based in order to prove an
argument that is static with no human emotion involved. The two do not mix.

If you want to argue a premise with a woman and succeed then you simply
can't combine the moral/emotional along with the static/programmatic/formula
type of thought process. Separate the two.


--
Jenn

[Aardvark]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 13:49:55 -0600, §ñühwö£f wrote:

> Aardvark wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 13:35:02 -0600, §ñühwö£f wrote:
>>
>>> Aardvark wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 14:48:10 -0400, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <SNIP>
>>>> Rationalise all you want. Your misogyny will *never* be excused.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Neils history of being in the he-man woman haters club is well known.
>>>
>>> :)
>>
>> So *that's* what soc.men is all about? Pussies who were emotionally
>> hurt by a woman or women once or more and have all got together to have
>> a pity party, making themselves feel better by denigrating the fairer
>> sex en masse?
>>
>> Gotcha, mate.
>>
>> Now that I know, I'll never have to go there to find out.
>>
> And closet cases who've yet to face their own sexuality, but yeah.
>

A-feared of wimmins? I see.

> Spot on.

:-)

[Aardvark]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 16:06:18 -0400, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:

> "Aardvark" <aard...@aardvark.uk.tc> wrote in message
> news:jk03t1$n1h$4...@dont-email.me...
>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 14:48:10 -0400, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
>>
>>> <SNIP>
>>
>> Rationalise all you want. Your misogyny will *never* be excused.
>
>
> I don't hate women so I don't need to be excused.
>

> I do hate <SNIP MISOGYNY RATIONALISATION>

Rationalise all you want. Your misogyny will *never* be excused.

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.]

"Jenn" <m...@noe.mail.com> wrote in message

news:jk0788$lo0$1...@dont-email.me...

Morals and ethics have little or nothing to do with a logical argument. A
logical argument may be used with validity no matter the subject matter.
And besides, yes/no decision is tantamount to binary computer code,
anyway. A yes is a zero while a no is a one. Your own premise invalidates
your conclusion because of this. Try something else or give it up.

> If you want to argue a premise with a woman and succeed then you simply
> can't combine the moral/emotional along with the
> static/programmatic/formula type of thought process. Separate the two.

Most certainly it is futile to argue with a woman whose premise
invalidates her conclusion.

Logic is not invalidated no matter the use it is put to. Logic remains
logical no matter the environment.

--
Sir Gregory

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.]

"Aardvark" <aard...@aardvark.uk.tc> wrote in message

news:jk07up$n1h$8...@dont-email.me...

> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 16:06:18 -0400, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
>
>> "Aardvark" <aard...@aardvark.uk.tc> wrote in message
>> news:jk03t1$n1h$4...@dont-email.me...
>>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 14:48:10 -0400, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
>>>
>>>> <SNIP>
>>>
>>> Rationalise all you want. Your misogyny will *never* be excused.
>>
>>
>> I don't hate women so I don't need to be excused.
>>
>> I do hate <SNIP MISOGYNY RATIONALISATION>
>
> Rationalise all you want. Your misogyny will *never* be excused.

Repeating the same drivel over and over just indicates you're an idiot.

PLONK!

[Jenn]

You were talking about " illogical arguments based upon feelings ", but at
the same time using a *feelings* based premise to argue a subject expecting
to include nothing but logical argument with no feelings attached to them.
You lost that argument, imo because of what it was based upon, imo.

>> If you want to argue a premise with a woman and succeed then you
>> simply can't combine the moral/emotional along with the
>> static/programmatic/formula type of thought process. Separate the
>> two.

> Most certainly it is futile to argue with a woman whose premise
> invalidates her conclusion.
>
> Logic is not invalidated no matter the use it is put to. Logic remains
> logical no matter the environment.

Logic is based on the ability of the individual to go from point A to point
B within a discussion and follow a specific line of reasoning, however, it
is also dependant upon the emotional status/growth/level of the individual,
therefore, can be flawed when attempting to use pure logic to argue any
premise, imo.

--
Jenn

[%]

Checkmate wrote:
> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts
> by Checkmate!
>
> First, check out what Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. said:
>
>
>>
>> "Jenn" <m...@noe.mail.com> wrote in message
>> news:jjvq8c$5vj$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> Jenn wrote:
>>>> Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
>>>
>>>> Both parties implicitely sanction an action if/when they both
>>>
>>> sorry .. this paragraph got past my spell check.. that should be
>>> *implicitly*
>>
>>
>> No plobrem. When typong a fat disgusting a few erorrs are bound to
>> peep in from time too time. . .
>
>
> Do tell...

if that's what you want to believe

[Jordon]

Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:

> *If* a woman unilaterally makes the decision to copulate with a
> fertile man, *then* that unilateral decision makes her 100%
> responsible for the consequences of that decision. This means
> she's 100% responsible for her birth control succeed or fail and
> any pregnancy because it's a consequence of her decision to
> copulate.

Using that logic, if the birth control method is the mans condom and
it breaks and she gets pregnant, then he's 100% responsible?

[%]

Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
> "Checkmate" <Lunati...@The.Edge> wrote in message
> news:MPG.29cd3c115...@news.alt.net...
>> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading
>> posts by Checkmate!
>>
>> First, check out what Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. said:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> "Jenn" <m...@noe.mail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:jjvq8c$5vj$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> Jenn wrote:
>>>>> Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Both parties implicitely sanction an action if/when they both
>>>>
>>>> sorry .. this paragraph got past my spell check.. that should be
>>>> *implicitly*
>>>
>>>
>>> No plobrem. When typong a fat disgusting a few erorrs are bound to
>>> peep in from time too time. . .
>>
>>
>> Do tell...
>
> Do suck my dick!

LOL

[Aardvark]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 16:38:39 -0400, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:

> "Aardvark" <aard...@aardvark.uk.tc> wrote in message
> news:jk07up$n1h$8...@dont-email.me...
>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 16:06:18 -0400, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
>>
>>> "Aardvark" <aard...@aardvark.uk.tc> wrote in message
>>> news:jk03t1$n1h$4...@dont-email.me...
>>>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 14:48:10 -0400, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <SNIP>
>>>>
>>>> Rationalise all you want. Your misogyny will *never* be excused.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't hate women so I don't need to be excused.
>>>
>>> I do hate <SNIP MISOGYNY RATIONALISATION>
>>
>> Rationalise all you want. Your misogyny will *never* be excused.
>
> Repeating the same drivel over and over just indicates you're an idiot.
>
> PLONK!

LOL. Bye-bye, ya fucking misogynist.

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.]

"Jenn" <m...@noe.mail.com> wrote in message

news:jk09q2$5m9$1...@dont-email.me...

Illogical argument based upon feelings is what you and many other women
proffer.
Yes, that is correct.

But I was not using a feeling's based premise. My premise all along has
been a decision-based premise. Any unilateral decision is just that - a
decision by one person and one person only. It doesn't matter one iota if
the decision is based upon feelings or not. The only thing that matters
from a logic standpoint is that the decision has consequences which
consequences must necessarily lie 100% with the decision maker.

You lost the argument and you keep losing it as long as you keep
introducing these straw men.

>>> If you want to argue a premise with a woman and succeed then you
>>> simply can't combine the moral/emotional along with the
>>> static/programmatic/formula type of thought process. Separate the
>>> two.
>
>> Most certainly it is futile to argue with a woman whose premise
>> invalidates her conclusion.
>>
>> Logic is not invalidated no matter the use it is put to. Logic remains
>> logical no matter the environment.
>
> Logic is based on the ability of the individual to go from point A to
> point B within a discussion and follow a specific line of reasoning,
> however, it is also dependant upon the emotional status/growth/level of
> the individual, therefore, can be flawed when attempting to use pure
> logic to argue any premise, imo.

Logic is logic. It's a system of thought based upon certain principles,
certain precepts. It's not based on an individual going from point A to
point B. Rather a logical argument is the application of logic to a
circumstance. In this case the logical argument is an if/then argument.

For example:

1) if a cat is an animal

2) and an animal is a living creature

3) then the cat is a living creature


Ergo:

1) if the decision (to copulate) is 100% the woman's

2) and the woman becomes pregnant

3) then the pregnancy is 100% the woman's decision.


Logic that can't be refuted, Jenn. :-)

--
Sir Gregory

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.]

"Jordon" <seatt...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote in message
news:jk0a96$326$1...@dont-email.me...

Wrong! Because the man cannot become pregnant. *Birth control* is the
woman's control of the woman's ability to birth offspring. Birth control
is of the woman, by the woman and for the woman. A man cannot control a
woman's body any more than a woman can control a man's body.

A condom is a birth control method used by women to create a physical
barrier between her partners penis and her cervix. That the man wears it
doesn't mean the man is controlling a birth. Only women, in light of the
fact that only women become pregnant, control their births.

--
Sir Gregory

[Jordon]

Which it isn't. Fail on #1. Takes two to tango.

> 2) and the woman becomes pregnant
>
> 3) then the pregnancy is 100% the woman's decision.
>
>
> Logic that can't be refuted, Jenn. :-)

Logic dictates that if it's 100% the woman's decision, then it's zero
percent the man's. That only works with a blow up doll. Speaking of
which, when you have sex with your blow up doll, is the decision to
have sex 100% the dolls?

[Aardvark]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 18:00:57 -0400, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:

> 1) if the decision (to copulate) is 100% the woman's

Which it isn't. It takes two to tango.

>
> <SNIP THE REST>

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.]

"Jordon" <seatt...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote in message

news:jk0e1s$qdr$1...@dont-email.me...

> Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
>
>> For example:
>>
>> 1) if a cat is an animal
>>
>> 2) and an animal is a living creature
>>
>> 3) then the cat is a living creature
>>
>>
>> Ergo:
>>
>> 1) if the decision (to copulate) is 100% the woman's
>
> Which it isn't. Fail on #1. Takes two to tango.
>
>> 2) and the woman becomes pregnant
>>
>> 3) then the pregnancy is 100% the woman's decision.
>>
>>
>> Logic that can't be refuted, Jenn. :-)
>
> Logic dictates that if it's 100% the woman's decision, then it's zero

> percent the man's. <snip>

Bingo! If the woman says no (barring rape) the man is shit out of luck.
It's 100% her decision to make.

If the "no" rejoinder is 100% her decision to make then you tell me,
please, why the "yes" rejoinder isn't also 100% hers to make. You can't so
don't bother.

--
Sir Gregory

--
Sir Gregory

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.]

"Jordon" <seatt...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote in message
news:jk0e1s$qdr$1...@dont-email.me...

> Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
>
>> For example:
>>
>> 1) if a cat is an animal
>>
>> 2) and an animal is a living creature
>>
>> 3) then the cat is a living creature
>>
>>
>> Ergo:
>>
>> 1) if the decision (to copulate) is 100% the woman's
>
> Which it isn't. Fail on #1. Takes two to tango.

Wrong! The decision isn't the act (copulation). The decision comes prior
to the act. The decision takes place in the woman's mind. It takes place
unilaterally. Her mind is 100% hers to make up one way or the other.

Taking two to Tango is a description of the act, which act does not take
place when the woman decides and says "no." It follows, then, if a "no"
decision is unilateral so is a "yes" decision unilateral. Please note
that no act (copulation) has taken place. Don't do like Jenn and try to
get away with putting the cart before the horse.

--
Sir Gregory

[Ferd Berfle]

"Jenn" <m...@noe.mail.com> wrote in message news:jjvq8c$5vj$1...@dont-email.me...

> Jenn wrote:
>> Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
>

>> Both parties implicitely sanction an action if/when they both
>
> sorry .. this paragraph got past my spell check.. that should be
> *implicitly*
>

"I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way."
- Mark Twain

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.]

"Ferd Berfle" <fa...@farkle.com> wrote in message
news:jk0f8h$518$1...@dont-email.me...

Poor Mark Twain! He was an illiterate.

Twain, aka Samuel Langhorne Clemens, should have written: "I don't give a
damn for a man *who* can only spell a word one way. A man should not be
referred to using an impersonal pronoun.

--
Sir Gregory

[Jordon]

Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:

> "Jordon" wrote in message

>> Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
>>
>>> *If* a woman unilaterally makes the decision to copulate with
>>> a fertile man, *then* that unilateral decision makes her 100%
>>> responsible for the consequences of that decision. This means
>>> she's 100% responsible for her birth control succeed or fail
>>> and any pregnancy because it's a consequence of her decision
>>> to copulate.
>>
>> Using that logic, if the birth control method is the mans
>> condom and it breaks and she gets pregnant, then he's 100%
>> responsible?
>
>
>
> Wrong! Because the man cannot become pregnant. *Birth control*
> is the woman's control of the woman's ability to birth
> offspring. Birth control is of the woman, by the woman and for
> the woman. A man cannot control a woman's body any more than a
> woman can control a man's body.

Let's take this one step at a time, shall we? For the time being,
let's leave pregnancy out of it.

When two people are going to "do it" (let's pretend both are
sterile), which of the two are responsible for making the decision to
bump uglies?

[Answer goes here]

Now, when the baby pops out 9 months later and the woman goes to a
judge and wants to get paid for the next 18 years, is the judge going
to call you for lessons in logic?

Ergo...

It takes two people to decide to have sex but it only takes one judge
to saddle you with child support for 18+ years.

There's some street logic for ya. It's not that hard.

[pandora]

Indeed. AND he gets to carry the pregnancy to term OR have an abortion.

Heheheheh.