Ah, yes. I forgot. Men are also expected to just "suck it up" and accept these injustices, any resistance labeled "whining" and "unmanly" in an attempt to shame them into silence. "You guys"? Then you are deceived yourself. Feel free to actually prove your statements instead of just leveling baseless accusations. I can easily evidence my claims. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29/child-support_n_3672474.html As for domestic violence inequality: http://www.svargalaw.com/domestic-violence/ Rape accusation: http://sf-criminaldefense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/KaninFalseRapeAllegations.pdf http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/20/elizabeth-coast-rape-lie_n_3784718.html Just for starters. So tell me again about falsehoods.
Men get a lot of privileges, if you dont know it or dont take advantage, it does not mean they are not there. A man is expected to carry all of the weight and receive none of the benefit. And yet the whiners here say the women get the good jobs. Anyway, this is so patently false, it needs no analysis. In a divorce, the woman will get everything, This is so childish that only "pants on fire' will do. Either you are deliberately lying or are fantastically ignorant. man pay child support for kids that aren't even his this probably varies by state and by circumstance, but you state it as an absolute and invariable. If there is a domestic fight, it is the man who is going to jail Sometimes, but you state it as an invariable. Cheap falsehood, either ignorant or deliberate. The legal system of the USA does not work that way. Men have become disposable. That is just you whining, and making a statement that you know very well is not true. Someone I'd call a man does not whine, doesnt make excuses, doesnt lie to bolster his case, and is quite capable of admitting he is wrong, when he is. Actually, same goes for women. Those who cant manage, regardless of sex or age, are worthy of zero respect. Zip for you. If you are a man, you are not much of one.
Such as? So getting the good jobs is "carrying the weight"? I would call that receiving the benefit. You acted like it was invariably false, until I proved that this most outrageous of injustices does in fact happen right here in America. If it happens ever, it is unjust, even if it doesn't happen 100% of the time. Then will you accept that it is generally true, even if not 100%? Since you decided not to respond to my evidence, perhaps you didn't read it when my link said:"Despite a lack of evidence in the trial, the judge took Coast's word over Montgomery's and sentenced the innocent man." The legal system did EXACTLY that. More ad hominems and accusations of whining (why can't those uppity ___ just know their place and quit whining). I guess that's all you have in place of evidence. Tactic noted. In any case, several of my points have been evidenced, but all you want to do is ignore the evidence and name-call.
Hilarious!!!! Since Taikoo claimed she knew she made more money than me and I remembered from another post that Taikoo was just a student and she admitted herself in another post she was just a student therefore admitting she lied
I am making no excuses, as there is nothing I need to make excuses for. I merely point out that your tactic to attempt to shame your opposition into silence is not going to work because I realize that that is what you are doing. Ah Hom, Ad hom...the refuge of the intellectually bankrupt. You have made an entire post with nothing but trash talk. Pathetic.
That's your strawman, not mine. See, this is the BS your whole argument relies on. If I say, "The grass is green", your response will be, "Quit spreading falsehoods, the grass is brown when it's dead". You will find an exception, and then act as though the exception somehow makes the rule "false" and acknowledgement of the rule "whining". Since she later admitted that she made it up, I ask you: What other evidence could there have been for an event that didn't take place? Now I know you're just trolling. You claim to never employ Ad Hom as you are employing it. Just quit it before you get reported.
I set that trap for you and you walked right into it. You really-really dont even know what an ad hom is, do you? Why dont you take a few minutes and at least look it up on wiki or something, so you wont sound quite so ridiculous?
First, I notice how you did not respond to anything relevant to the argument (for example, the way you ignore the rule and focus on the exception)so you could continue to focus on me rather than the topic. Ad hominem: an argument "against the man" rather than "against the opposing argument" AS IN: calling someone "unmanly", a "loser", a "whiner", "intellectual lightweight" "ignoramus" in an attempt to undermine the argument by attacking the messenger. Yep, exactly what you've been doing. Not only a logical fallacy, but also a TOS violation. So, do you think you could make a post without any of that, or is your case too weak?
You still dont know what it means. You are wrong, when you are, not because of any applicable adjectives, but because you are wrong. As for all the new topics you brought in and demanded I deal with them, instead of you with the original topic, your falsehoods, nice try. You made statements that were factually incorrect. A baby gish of new topics wont change that.
All part of the "silly speak" tactic - a simple formula used to supress discussion of an unwanted subject, by use of illogical fragmentation, and scattered distraction. Invariably backfires on the user because use of Silly Speak as a topic suppressant, naturally evokes the question /s of, "Are you really that dumb?", and/or "What are you trying to hide?".
