Piggs and their single daughters?

[drboom]

[quote=davelj]
Again, quotes will do. Otherwise, I’ll have to assume that this is just sophistry on your part and you are incapable of supporting your argument with facts.[/quote]

Sophistry?

I do not think it means what you think it means.
—Inigo Montoya

If you want a quote, please direct us to the post you wrote about women as something other than objects of amusement, utility, or conquest. Unsupported assertions about how you “like”, nay “love”, women don’t count, and we’re not talking about friends or family.

I don’t need to provide anything: your record speaks for itself. It would be more fun to debate if I had any confidence that you’d do more than simplemindedly parse out of recognition everything you didn’t misread.

[davelj]

[quote=drboom][quote=davelj]
Again, quotes will do. Otherwise, I’ll have to assume that this is just sophistry on your part and you are incapable of supporting your argument with facts.[/quote]

Sophistry?

I do not think it means what you think it means.
—Inigo Montoya

If you want a quote, please direct us to the post you wrote about women as something other than objects of amusement, utility, or conquest. Unsupported assertions about how you “like”, nay “love”, women don’t count, and we’re not talking about friends or family.

I don’t need to provide anything: your record speaks for itself. It would be more fun to debate if I had any confidence that you’d do more than simplemindedly parse out of recognition everything you didn’t misread.[/quote]

I’m pretty sure I know exactly what sophistry means and I’m also pretty sure that it describes to a T your attempt to “prove” that I’m a misogynist (“without providing anything” no less – how convenient!!).

soph⋅ist⋅ry /ˈsɒfəstri/
1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
2. a false argument; sophism.

As you know from Logic 101, one cannot prove a negative. And since this is the internet, almost EVERY assertion made that is not historical – and thus verifiable – in context is, by definition, “unsupported.” Despite that fact… I’m going to do as you ask… because it will amuse me… although your exclusion of “friends” is odd – if I have female friends that I don’t want to “conquer” (to use your words), doesn’t that by definition cast doubt on your argument? Do misogynists have female friends that they treat as equals to their male friends? I suppose it’s possible, but I doubt it… But I will get to this. For the moment, however, I’m off to dinner with friends… and my god there will be a female there… that I don’t want to conquer… what does it all mean?

[davelj]

[quote=drboom][quote=davelj]
Again, quotes will do. Otherwise, I’ll have to assume that this is just sophistry on your part and you are incapable of supporting your argument with facts.[/quote]

Sophistry?

I do not think it means what you think it means.
—Inigo Montoya

If you want a quote, please direct us to the post you wrote about women as something other than objects of amusement, utility, or conquest. Unsupported assertions about how you “like”, nay “love”, women don’t count, and we’re not talking about friends or family.

I don’t need to provide anything: your record speaks for itself. It would be more fun to debate if I had any confidence that you’d do more than simplemindedly parse out of recognition everything you didn’t misread.[/quote]

I’m pretty sure I know exactly what sophistry means and I’m also pretty sure that it describes to a T your attempt to “prove” that I’m a misogynist (“without providing anything” no less – how convenient!!).

soph⋅ist⋅ry /ˈsɒfəstri/
1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
2. a false argument; sophism.

As you know from Logic 101, one cannot prove a negative. And since this is the internet, almost EVERY assertion made that is not historical – and thus verifiable – in context is, by definition, “unsupported.” Despite that fact… I’m going to do as you ask… because it will amuse me… although your exclusion of “friends” is odd – if I have female friends that I don’t want to “conquer” (to use your words), doesn’t that by definition cast doubt on your argument? Do misogynists have female friends that they treat as equals to their male friends? I suppose it’s possible, but I doubt it… But I will get to this. For the moment, however, I’m off to dinner with friends… and my god there will be a female there… that I don’t want to conquer… what does it all mean?

[davelj]

[quote=drboom][quote=davelj]
Again, quotes will do. Otherwise, I’ll have to assume that this is just sophistry on your part and you are incapable of supporting your argument with facts.[/quote]

Sophistry?

I do not think it means what you think it means.
—Inigo Montoya

If you want a quote, please direct us to the post you wrote about women as something other than objects of amusement, utility, or conquest. Unsupported assertions about how you “like”, nay “love”, women don’t count, and we’re not talking about friends or family.

I don’t need to provide anything: your record speaks for itself. It would be more fun to debate if I had any confidence that you’d do more than simplemindedly parse out of recognition everything you didn’t misread.[/quote]

I’m pretty sure I know exactly what sophistry means and I’m also pretty sure that it describes to a T your attempt to “prove” that I’m a misogynist (“without providing anything” no less – how convenient!!).

soph⋅ist⋅ry /ˈsɒfəstri/
1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
2. a false argument; sophism.

As you know from Logic 101, one cannot prove a negative. And since this is the internet, almost EVERY assertion made that is not historical – and thus verifiable – in context is, by definition, “unsupported.” Despite that fact… I’m going to do as you ask… because it will amuse me… although your exclusion of “friends” is odd – if I have female friends that I don’t want to “conquer” (to use your words), doesn’t that by definition cast doubt on your argument? Do misogynists have female friends that they treat as equals to their male friends? I suppose it’s possible, but I doubt it… But I will get to this. For the moment, however, I’m off to dinner with friends… and my god there will be a female there… that I don’t want to conquer… what does it all mean?

[davelj]

[quote=drboom][quote=davelj]
Again, quotes will do. Otherwise, I’ll have to assume that this is just sophistry on your part and you are incapable of supporting your argument with facts.[/quote]

Sophistry?

I do not think it means what you think it means.
—Inigo Montoya

If you want a quote, please direct us to the post you wrote about women as something other than objects of amusement, utility, or conquest. Unsupported assertions about how you “like”, nay “love”, women don’t count, and we’re not talking about friends or family.

I don’t need to provide anything: your record speaks for itself. It would be more fun to debate if I had any confidence that you’d do more than simplemindedly parse out of recognition everything you didn’t misread.[/quote]

I’m pretty sure I know exactly what sophistry means and I’m also pretty sure that it describes to a T your attempt to “prove” that I’m a misogynist (“without providing anything” no less – how convenient!!).

soph⋅ist⋅ry /ˈsɒfəstri/
1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
2. a false argument; sophism.

As you know from Logic 101, one cannot prove a negative. And since this is the internet, almost EVERY assertion made that is not historical – and thus verifiable – in context is, by definition, “unsupported.” Despite that fact… I’m going to do as you ask… because it will amuse me… although your exclusion of “friends” is odd – if I have female friends that I don’t want to “conquer” (to use your words), doesn’t that by definition cast doubt on your argument? Do misogynists have female friends that they treat as equals to their male friends? I suppose it’s possible, but I doubt it… But I will get to this. For the moment, however, I’m off to dinner with friends… and my god there will be a female there… that I don’t want to conquer… what does it all mean?

[davelj]

[quote=drboom][quote=davelj]
Again, quotes will do. Otherwise, I’ll have to assume that this is just sophistry on your part and you are incapable of supporting your argument with facts.[/quote]

Sophistry?

I do not think it means what you think it means.
—Inigo Montoya

If you want a quote, please direct us to the post you wrote about women as something other than objects of amusement, utility, or conquest. Unsupported assertions about how you “like”, nay “love”, women don’t count, and we’re not talking about friends or family.

I don’t need to provide anything: your record speaks for itself. It would be more fun to debate if I had any confidence that you’d do more than simplemindedly parse out of recognition everything you didn’t misread.[/quote]

I’m pretty sure I know exactly what sophistry means and I’m also pretty sure that it describes to a T your attempt to “prove” that I’m a misogynist (“without providing anything” no less – how convenient!!).

soph⋅ist⋅ry /ˈsɒfəstri/
1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
2. a false argument; sophism.

As you know from Logic 101, one cannot prove a negative. And since this is the internet, almost EVERY assertion made that is not historical – and thus verifiable – in context is, by definition, “unsupported.” Despite that fact… I’m going to do as you ask… because it will amuse me… although your exclusion of “friends” is odd – if I have female friends that I don’t want to “conquer” (to use your words), doesn’t that by definition cast doubt on your argument? Do misogynists have female friends that they treat as equals to their male friends? I suppose it’s possible, but I doubt it… But I will get to this. For the moment, however, I’m off to dinner with friends… and my god there will be a female there… that I don’t want to conquer… what does it all mean?

[briansd1]

drboom, why would you say that davelj dislikes women?

He must enjoy their company enough in order to bother, as you say, with “amusement, utility, or conquest.”

I can’t speak for davelj, but I personally take women at face value, the way I observe them to be. But I choose to deal with them my own way. The fact that I don’t deal with them under their own terms doesn’t mean that I dislike them. Some of them actually dislike me for not following their ways.

If women don’t like the way certain men are, they have the choice of not associating with them.

I think that certain women carry a chip on their shoulders. Don’t we live in equal lib? If women are as capable as they claim (and don’t need men for support), then where’s the rub?

What I don’t get is: why do women do certain things such as getting married, and having children, cooking, cleaning, etc.., then complain about it after the fact?

If women feel that they are getting a raw deal, they shouldn’t do things nobody forced them do to in the first place.

[briansd1]

drboom, why would you say that davelj dislikes women?

He must enjoy their company enough in order to bother, as you say, with “amusement, utility, or conquest.”

I can’t speak for davelj, but I personally take women at face value, the way I observe them to be. But I choose to deal with them my own way. The fact that I don’t deal with them under their own terms doesn’t mean that I dislike them. Some of them actually dislike me for not following their ways.

If women don’t like the way certain men are, they have the choice of not associating with them.

I think that certain women carry a chip on their shoulders. Don’t we live in equal lib? If women are as capable as they claim (and don’t need men for support), then where’s the rub?

What I don’t get is: why do women do certain things such as getting married, and having children, cooking, cleaning, etc.., then complain about it after the fact?

If women feel that they are getting a raw deal, they shouldn’t do things nobody forced them do to in the first place.

[briansd1]

drboom, why would you say that davelj dislikes women?

He must enjoy their company enough in order to bother, as you say, with “amusement, utility, or conquest.”

I can’t speak for davelj, but I personally take women at face value, the way I observe them to be. But I choose to deal with them my own way. The fact that I don’t deal with them under their own terms doesn’t mean that I dislike them. Some of them actually dislike me for not following their ways.

If women don’t like the way certain men are, they have the choice of not associating with them.

I think that certain women carry a chip on their shoulders. Don’t we live in equal lib? If women are as capable as they claim (and don’t need men for support), then where’s the rub?

What I don’t get is: why do women do certain things such as getting married, and having children, cooking, cleaning, etc.., then complain about it after the fact?

If women feel that they are getting a raw deal, they shouldn’t do things nobody forced them do to in the first place.

[briansd1]

drboom, why would you say that davelj dislikes women?

He must enjoy their company enough in order to bother, as you say, with “amusement, utility, or conquest.”

I can’t speak for davelj, but I personally take women at face value, the way I observe them to be. But I choose to deal with them my own way. The fact that I don’t deal with them under their own terms doesn’t mean that I dislike them. Some of them actually dislike me for not following their ways.

If women don’t like the way certain men are, they have the choice of not associating with them.

I think that certain women carry a chip on their shoulders. Don’t we live in equal lib? If women are as capable as they claim (and don’t need men for support), then where’s the rub?

What I don’t get is: why do women do certain things such as getting married, and having children, cooking, cleaning, etc.., then complain about it after the fact?

If women feel that they are getting a raw deal, they shouldn’t do things nobody forced them do to in the first place.

[briansd1]

drboom, why would you say that davelj dislikes women?

He must enjoy their company enough in order to bother, as you say, with “amusement, utility, or conquest.”

I can’t speak for davelj, but I personally take women at face value, the way I observe them to be. But I choose to deal with them my own way. The fact that I don’t deal with them under their own terms doesn’t mean that I dislike them. Some of them actually dislike me for not following their ways.

If women don’t like the way certain men are, they have the choice of not associating with them.

I think that certain women carry a chip on their shoulders. Don’t we live in equal lib? If women are as capable as they claim (and don’t need men for support), then where’s the rub?

What I don’t get is: why do women do certain things such as getting married, and having children, cooking, cleaning, etc.., then complain about it after the fact?

If women feel that they are getting a raw deal, they shouldn’t do things nobody forced them do to in the first place.

[sdrealtor]

FWIW, I grew up in Philly. It is a well known fact that Ben Franklin was a legendary womanizer in his time.

[sdrealtor]

FWIW, I grew up in Philly. It is a well known fact that Ben Franklin was a legendary womanizer in his time.

[sdrealtor]

FWIW, I grew up in Philly. It is a well known fact that Ben Franklin was a legendary womanizer in his time.

[sdrealtor]

FWIW, I grew up in Philly. It is a well known fact that Ben Franklin was a legendary womanizer in his time.

[Author]

Posts