Anne Romney Hasn't Worked A Day in Her Life

[Tyrannical]

An individual's rights exist by virtue of their birth, they are not granted by the State.

The only right granted and enforced by birth is the eventuality of death. All other rights are granted by and enforced by the State.

[Coito ergo sum]

An individual's rights exist by virtue of their birth, they are not granted by the State.

The only right granted and enforced by birth is the eventuality of death. All other rights are granted by and enforced by the State.

The people grant the power to the State to exist in the first place. Governments are instituted among men, men aren't instituted among or by governments. People existed prior to governments, and people created governments, not the other way around.

All just power comes from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical acquatic ceremony - Monty Python.

[Tyrannical]

An individual's rights exist by virtue of their birth, they are not granted by the State.

The only right granted and enforced by birth is the eventuality of death. All other rights are granted by and enforced by the State.

The people grant the power to the State to exist in the first place. Governments are instituted among men, men aren't instituted among or by governments. People existed prior to governments, and people created governments, not the other way around.

All just power comes from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical acquatic ceremony - Monty Python.

How you mentioned men.

You can argue that woman are personally better off, but how is society as a whole (including women) benefit from this? The growing demographic crisis caused indirectly by women's rights threatens the very fabric that keeps a society together. Interesting that women's rights can be considered good if the end game is societal collapse.

[Seabass]

Including the "war on women" invented by the Democrat party. It's all crap. It's just a big pile of shit.

I don't know-- the fight to roll back access to contraception and reproductive rights across the nation seems like an attack on women.

Women's rights haven't exactly been good for society, and women's reproductive rights are causing a demographic catastrophe by lowering the birth rate to the point that in the future retirees will be unable to be taken care of.

Send 'em out on an ice floe. If we still have ice floes.

What has women's rights really accomplished

Inability of a single worker to provide for their family due to labor competition.
Ballooning welfare costs
Destruction of the family unit through divorce and out of wedlock births
Single mother "children" do markedly worse academical and are more anti-social and are thus less able to support a modern society
Demographic childbirth crisis that will doom millions of elderly

Judge the tree by the fruit it bears, giving women the right to vote is the source of much of society's ills.

Lol. Do you actually believe this stuff or are you just out to irritate people? Or did you invent a time machine and travel two centuries forward in time?

So who is worse for society: women or blacks?

[Coito ergo sum]

An individual's rights exist by virtue of their birth, they are not granted by the State.

The only right granted and enforced by birth is the eventuality of death. All other rights are granted by and enforced by the State.

The people grant the power to the State to exist in the first place. Governments are instituted among men, men aren't instituted among or by governments. People existed prior to governments, and people created governments, not the other way around.

All just power comes from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical acquatic ceremony - Monty Python.

How you mentioned men.

You can argue that woman are personally better off, but how is society as a whole (including women) benefit from this? The growing demographic crisis caused indirectly by women's rights threatens the very fabric that keeps a society together. Interesting that women's rights can be considered good if the end game is societal collapse.

Society is made up of individuals, and most of those individuals are women. Society is not something different than women.

I challenge your premise that the end game is societal collapse.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Negative. You display your willingness to infer connections that don't exist.

Wherein you display a willingness to invent anything that satisfies your preconceived notions.

Sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't. That depends on whether the politician has prepared their words. They sometimes speak off the cuff, and sometimes they don't.

Likewise, Thump. I find your "understanding" to be essentially a lack thereof. You have a conclusion you want to reach, and you decide to "interpret" words to fit that conclusion.

Of course words have connotations and denotations. If you'd follow them, and if you had any desire to even try to know what they were, you'd know you can't logically reach the conclusions you do. What it amounts to is that you ignore the connotations and denotations and simply invent your own meanings and infer your own imagined intents. You're free to do so, of course. But please don't pretend it is some sort of keen insight. It's unbecoming.

And, if you bothered to read the words actually used by people, instead of just inventing things, you'd know that I never suggested or implied that there wasn't an attempt to roll back abortion rights. In fact, I specifically and expressly stated that there were such attempts. So, what the hell are you even talking about? This is a prime example of what you did in the case of Romney's words - instead of reading and understanding the words actually written, you go off on your own tangent.

Actually, what I just did was prove that you were talking out of your ass. But, sure, hand wave it away. That's your only option at this point.

My lack of insight? That's rich.

Change your mind? You're too intellectually dishonest to honestly change your mind when you've been proven wrong. Your abortion/rollback argument is a good example. You invent an argument I never made and knock it down, and then you tell me that my arguments are weak reasoning? It is enough to make a cat laugh.

Go quote another piece of material and invent your own meaning for it. Call it "implication" and "inference" and then pretend you have half a brain. It seems to keep you happy, and if that works for you, then maybe ignorance truly is bliss.

*yawn*

Let me know when you want to have an intelligent discussion. Your refusal to see any point but your own marks you as unworthy of my attention. Go play with Seth, now.

[Coito ergo sum]

Keep on babbling. It is what you're good at.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Oh dear, that hurts my feelings.


Oh, wait, it doesn't. Try again?

[Tyrannical]

Lol. Do you actually believe this stuff or are you just out to irritate people? Or did you invent a time machine and travel two centuries forward in time?

So who is worse for society: women or blacks?

Blacks obviously. Society can function perfectly well without them.
Though ironically, if women had the right to vote in the 1860s slavery would never have been outlawed in the US.

[Warren Dew]

Though ironically, if women had the right to vote in the 1860s slavery would never have been outlawed in the US.

Why do you say that?

[Svartalf]

Lol. Do you actually believe this stuff or are you just out to irritate people? Or did you invent a time machine and travel two centuries forward in time?

So who is worse for society: women or blacks?

Blacks obviously. Society can function perfectly well without them.
Though ironically, if women had the right to vote in the 1860s slavery would never have been outlawed in the US.

Are you mad? you mean you want white trash for household help, gardeners and janitors?

Worse than that, you want to destroy the country's athletic potential?

Are you some kind of traitor?

[Tyrannical]

Though ironically, if women had the right to vote in the 1860s slavery would never have been outlawed in the US.

Why do you say that?

Because the Reconstruction amendments would never have passed after the Civil War, and it required 3/4 of the States to adopt it.
White men were largely deprived of their right to vote for taking part in the rebellion, but if women were allowed to vote I don't think those amendments could have passed. And no I don't support slavery, except as punishment for a crime.

[Thumpalumpacus]

My lack of insight? That's rich.

Change your mind? You're too intellectually dishonest to honestly change your mind when you've been proven wrong. Your abortion/rollback argument is a good example. You invent an argument I never made and knock it down, and then you tell me that my arguments are weak reasoning? It is enough to make a cat laugh.

Go quote another piece of material and invent your own meaning for it. Call it "implication" and "inference" and then pretend you have half a brain. It seems to keep you happy, and if that works for you, then maybe ignorance truly is bliss.

Oh, hey, I almost forgot this discussion.

I'm honest enough to change my mind and admit error. Let's see if you're smart enough to cobble together a convincing argument. I'm not holding my breath, because you clearly have preconceptions you're defending.

It's clear to me that one reason you're so upset about my disagreement with you is that it is an implicit attack on what you see as the normal gender roles. Because of that, you cannot concede my point about Romney's choice of words, without re-examining your opinion of the role of women.

It's really funny that you cannot bear the thought of someone not agreeing with you so much that you would attack the character of someone you don't even know. Your willingness to speak about me out of ignorance is not nearly so hurtful as you would like to imagine, because it says much more about you than it does about me.

You have a nice day now, Fred.

[Coito ergo sum]

My lack of insight? That's rich.

Change your mind? You're too intellectually dishonest to honestly change your mind when you've been proven wrong. Your abortion/rollback argument is a good example. You invent an argument I never made and knock it down, and then you tell me that my arguments are weak reasoning? It is enough to make a cat laugh.

Go quote another piece of material and invent your own meaning for it. Call it "implication" and "inference" and then pretend you have half a brain. It seems to keep you happy, and if that works for you, then maybe ignorance truly is bliss.

Oh, hey, I almost forgot this discussion.

I'm honest enough to change my mind and admit error.

I'll believe it when you admit that you attributed to me something I didn't write. You said I claimed that there wasn't an attempt to roll back abortion rights. I've clarified many times that I did not hold that position, and that I in fact held the exact opposite position. You've been told this several times, and you've never admitted your error.

[

Let's see if you're smart enough to cobble together a convincing argument. I'm not holding my breath, because you clearly have preconceptions you're defending.

I already did. Evidence is that the only way you've had to attack my argument was by creating a straw man.

[

It's clear to me that one reason you're so upset about my disagreement with you is that it is an implicit attack on what you see as the normal gender roles.

That isn't the case at all. I don't believe in normal gender roles.

[

Because of that, you cannot concede my point about Romney's choice of words, without re-examining your opinion of the role of women.

I don't need to concede your point. He didn't say what you said he said. His wife is not an "Advisor." And, nothing he said he discussed with his wife requires having a career or even being a woman for her to render a valuable opinion.

[

It's really funny that you cannot bear the thought of someone not agreeing with you so much that you would attack the character of someone you don't even know.

I haven't attacked your character. Only your argument.

And, if you look back, you'll find you threw the first rhetorical punch. If you don't like being responded to, then don't take jabs.

[

Your willingness to speak about me out of ignorance is not nearly so hurtful as you would like to imagine, because it says much more about you than it does about me.

You have a nice day now, Fred.

Thanks, I'm not speaking to you out of ignorance. You attributed to me an argument I did not make. That's the main thrust of this. And, you also saw fit to take rhetorical jabs at me, and now you cry about being responded to.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'll believe it when you admit that you attributed to me something I didn't write. You said I claimed that there wasn't an attempt to roll back abortion rights. I've clarified many times that I did not hold that position, and that I in fact held the exact opposite position. You've been told this several times, and you've never admitted your error.

Because you aren't reading what I wrote. I specifically addressed "reproductive rights" not abortion rights, because that is the term Hadespussercat used. Your subsequent narrowing of that to "abortion rights" is not only self-serving, it's also disingenuous, considering your insistence elsewhere on literalism regarding the language. If you are going to chastise me for deriving connotations rather than denotations, you'd damned well better be practicing perfect literalism yourself.

I have nothing to apologize for; I've addressed the point in the terms laid down by her. You don't like it? Fine. But don't try to artificially narrow the scope in order to accuse me of something.

I already did. Evidence is that the only way you've had to attack my argument was by creating a straw man.

Nonsense. Is English your primary language? I've addressed your points, or what pass for such.

That isn't the case at all. I don't believe in normal gender roles.

This is dubious, but we'll see.

I don't need to concede your point. He didn't say what you said he said. His wife is not an "Advisor." And, nothing he said he discussed with his wife requires having a career or even being a woman for her to render a valuable opinion.

Once again, you're ignoring the way that language is used.

And, if he's discussing what American women regard as issues, experience balancing a career, parenthood, and workplace discrimination would render her opinion more valuable.

I haven't attacked your character. Only your argument.

Really?

Change your mind? You're too intellectually dishonest to honestly change your mind [...]

Looks like a character attack to me. Either you're so stupid you don't realize that that's what it is, or you're lying. Which is it?

And, if you look back, you'll find you threw the first rhetorical punch. If you don't like being responded to, then don't take jabs.

I don't mind responses; I simply prefer them to be intelligent.

Thanks, I'm not speaking to you out of ignorance. You attributed to me an argument I did not make. That's the main thrust of this. And, you also saw fit to take rhetorical jabs at me, and now you cry about being responded to.

As pointed out above, you're both wrong, and dishonest.