Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JinnKai
I can't even touch this, because you've worded it so carefully that you can back out claiming you were right no matter what facts arise to dispute your claim. I envy your use of "very few", "genuine", "non-violent", "nearly all" and "driven by desperation". It's very careful word smithing to disguise an otherwise unprovable tautology. After all, you can say male rapists are 'nearly all' driven by desperation; they were SO DESPERATE for sex!
Your comments are so trivial I can't help but believing that this thread, like the Hillary Clinton thread, are poisoned by your naive belief about the sanctity of women. It's no surprise you can't have a female President, and it's no surprise that you can't believe a 'poor lil Womiins' is being so mistreated by the evil evil government.
I'd have no problem if you just admitted you were an out-and-out sexist and defended from there, but instead you're trying to hide in a guise of 'equality but not equal treatment'!
This one in particular makes me laugh:
I wish there was a better word than naive. Primitive, perhaps?
|
I think what SF said is just fine. What he wrote perfectly demonstrates the belief that he believes in the statistics that would show that women are the "exception to the rule"
that being said, equality rights are equality rights. If you have the capacity to pick up a knife and stab someone, for example, just like a man could, you should be able to expect the same result as a man would. And that means jail time.
on a more personal note, it also means, stop bitching at me to put the toilet seat down, I did my part by raising it. (I'm not a sexist, i'm just tired of stupid ass complaints)