Evidence for God from Science

What's your point?

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2019 9:48 am What's your point?

I think his point is that if a man hits and threatens a woman, and then gets shot by the woman who he's abused, somehow that means it's the woman's fault.

RickD wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2019 10:17 am

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2019 9:48 am What's your point?

I think his point is that if a man hits and threatens a woman, and then gets shot by the woman who he's abused, somehow that means it's the woman's fault.

WHAT? As usual, blaming the man.
No, what I mean is a female can punch a male for all types of reasons and it's considered ok, but not so for the reverse. That is NOT saying it's always or only the male that started it.

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 10:18 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 10:54 amYeah, women have never had any say in things, yeah, the vagina holds no influence at all !

It's true, here in the West the wife owns the vagina, not the husband.

That's been true since the founding of our republic the 1970s in most of the US, 1985 in New York and Alabama, and 1993 in Oklahoma and North Carolina. It's been the case in Canada since 1983.

Prior to those dates spousal rape wasn't a crime in those places. In other words, the wife may have carried the vagina around with her, but it was the husband's to use as he saw fit, wherever and whenever he pleased. If "no" was in the wife's vocabulary it was because the husband allowed it to be.

Was there ever a time when straight, white, American men had that little physical autonomy? I can't think of one.

yeah, in the past women has no say in anything, ever !
LMAO !

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 4:45 amyeah, in the past women has no say in anything, ever !
LMAO !

All I'm saying is that feminism, the gay rights movement, the civil rights movement, FFR, and all the rest were effects rather than causes. I never said that women never had say in anything. That's you trying to build a strawman for some reason.

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 4:58 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 4:45 amyeah, in the past women has no say in anything, ever !
LMAO !

All I'm saying is that feminism, the gay rights movement, the civil rights movement, FFR, and all the rest were effects rather than causes. I never said that women never had say in anything. That's you trying to build a strawman for some reason.

I don't think anyone is denying they were effects.
We probably will disagree and what drove those movements but it isn't really the issue.

It's kind of joke really, especially when I hear about the "patriarchy", LOL!

People that talk about the patriarchy should meet a Jewish mother-in-law !

If you look at actual influence, even the most patriarchal societies were NOT that patriarchal.

Some people point out those "machismo" latin societies as patriarchies for example, but actually live there and you see who really '"wears the pants".
Sure it far less obvious ( maybe that is why some choose not to see it), but those in the community know, heck, they see it everyday.


To be honest, I am waiting for the silliness of the patriarchy to go the way of the silliness of the "wage gap" BS.

thatkidakayoungguy wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 8:27 pm

RickD wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2019 10:17 am

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2019 9:48 am What's your point?

I think his point is that if a man hits and threatens a woman, and then gets shot by the woman who he's abused, somehow that means it's the woman's fault.

WHAT? As usual, blaming the man.
No, what I mean is a female can punch a male for all types of reasons and it's considered ok, but not so for the reverse. That is NOT saying it's always or only the male that started it.

Who says it's "ok" for a woman to punch a man?

You do realize that we have laws against assault, don't you?

RickD wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 1:17 pm

thatkidakayoungguy wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 8:27 pm

RickD wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2019 10:17 am

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2019 9:48 am What's your point?

I think his point is that if a man hits and threatens a woman, and then gets shot by the woman who he's abused, somehow that means it's the woman's fault.

WHAT? As usual, blaming the man.
No, what I mean is a female can punch a male for all types of reasons and it's considered ok, but not so for the reverse. That is NOT saying it's always or only the male that started it.

Who says it's "ok" for a woman to punch a man?

You do realize that we have laws against assault, don't you?

Yea, but look at the media. Little kids. The "wife with the pan" meme. Sure, it's illegal, but it happens and it's more overlooked or rather underreported.

thatkidakayoungguy wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 2:38 pm

RickD wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 1:17 pm

thatkidakayoungguy wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 8:27 pm

RickD wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2019 10:17 am

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2019 9:48 am What's your point?

I think his point is that if a man hits and threatens a woman, and then gets shot by the woman who he's abused, somehow that means it's the woman's fault.

WHAT? As usual, blaming the man.
No, what I mean is a female can punch a male for all types of reasons and it's considered ok, but not so for the reverse. That is NOT saying it's always or only the male that started it.

Who says it's "ok" for a woman to punch a man?

You do realize that we have laws against assault, don't you?

Yea, but look at the media. Little kids. The "wife with the pan" meme. Sure, it's illegal, but it happens and it's more overlooked or rather underreported.

So, overlooked and underreported = OK.

Got it.

thatkidakayoungguy wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 2:38 pm ...but look at the media. Little kids. The "wife with the pan" meme. Sure, it's illegal, but it happens and it's more overlooked or rather underreported.

That isn’t a “wife with the pan” meme. It’s two Episcopal married gays. So it’s okay. Men often bond by horsing around.