or, possibly, why lefties shoot themselves in the foot when they call for higher taxes on the rich ;) ;)

What do the rich really want?
certainly not more money.
they already have enough of that.
so they dont want more money to spend it, they accumulate more money to "keep score"
The rich want honor and respect. they want to be able to walk into a room full of strangers and be recognised as someone who matters.


The lefts solution is just that we should tax the rich more.

But this does not grasp the real motivation of the rich

the rich pursue money because money in capitalism is the source of "honour"

if you try to tax the rich, they will just take their money and move.

The better strategy is to "seduce' the rich.
Honour them for their benevolence.

Honour is a powerful motivator,
soldiers will die for a victoria cross (honour)
scientists will slave away an entire life for a nobel prize (honour).

yet where is the honour offered to the rich (who are largely hated upon)

there is NO system to reward the rich for doing what we want them to do....

treat their workers well and produce safe useful and environmentally friendly products .

Society should do a deal with capitalists. it should givbe them the honour (and love) they so desperately want .

you see capitalists are  narcistists and ambitious.

Set up a scheme for them being honoured for looking after their workers and the planet and they will do it.

This isnt even a revolutionary idea.

Adam Smith, one of the founders of capitalism recognised that people have 2 main motivations, the love of money and the love of glory .
so rather then wait for the rich to grow halo's,  how much more sensible to seduce them with the most powerful of desires....the desire to be loved.

Oh christ I needed that laugh aquascoot.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jan 20^th, 2016 at 1:57pm:

Oh christ I needed that laugh aquascoot.

We laugh at the beta leftards who think their opinion is worth something.  ;D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D

aquascoot wrote on Jan 20^th, 2016 at 1:55pm:

or, possibly, why lefties shoot themselves in the foot when they call for higher taxes on the rich ;) ;) What do the rich really want? certainly not more money. they already have enough of that. so they dont want more money to spend it, they accumulate more money to "keep score" The rich want honor and respect. they want to be able to walk into a room full of strangers and be recognised as someone who matters. The lefts solution is just that we should tax the rich more. But this does not grasp the real motivation of the rich the rich pursue money because money in capitalism is the source of "honour" if you try to tax the rich, they will just take their money and move. The better strategy is to "seduce' the rich. Honour them for their benevolence. Honour is a powerful motivator, soldiers will die for a victoria cross (honour) scientists will slave away an entire life for a nobel prize (honour). yet where is the honour offered to the rich (who are largely hated upon) there is NO system to reward the rich for doing what we want them to do.... treat their workers well and produce safe useful and environmentally friendly products . Society should do a deal with capitalists. it should givbe them the honour (and love) they so desperately want . you see capitalists are  narcistists and ambitious. Set up a scheme for them being honoured for looking after their workers and the planet and they will do it. This isnt even a revolutionary idea. Adam Smith, one of the founders of capitalism recognised that people have 2 main motivations, the love of money and the love of glory . so rather then wait for the rich to grow halo's,  how much more sensible to seduce them with the most powerful of desires....the desire to be loved.

What? No horse story? You're an imposter.

What have you done with the REAL Aquascoot?

:P

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jan 20^th, 2016 at 1:57pm:

Oh christ I needed that laugh aquascoot.

You are a lefty loser, but loser is probably not really the right word, a better word may be non achiever or underachiever but lets just say loser for now as this is a familiar term, now being a loser isn't necessarily a bad thing, if you want to be a loser you should be able to be a loser, not everyone wants to pursue a bucket of money and thats fair enough.

Unfortunately for losers though there are winners and as long as their are winners around they make losers look bad, even if the losers want to be losers and are quite comfortable in being losers it doesn't matter, they still look bad.

This is where socialism comes in, socialism is revenge of the losers, in a socialist society everyone is a loser and in fact the winners in a free society become the biggest losers in a socialist society because they have a lot more to lose.

Now Enter loser BH, in a socialist society he would be the biggest loser and in a society of losers he would be very comfortable with this, in fact it would likely increase his standing in the community, and this is why losers are so determined to get rid of winners ... because winners make them look bad.

aquascoot wrote on Jan 20^th, 2016 at 1:55pm:

certainly not more money.

and you probably believe that too!

http://www.drodd.com/images13/laughing-gif17.gif

I'm rich, it's called happiness in my new predicament, which I worked hard to achieve. But both the rich Libs and the poor Labs keep trying to wipe the smile off my face, why would that be ? They simply don't want happy people, just compliant slaves to their way of dictatorial mind processors

aquascoot wrote on Jan 20^th, 2016 at 1:55pm:

The lefts solution is just that we should tax the rich more.

But this is not even a solution.  It just grows the government, grows the bureaucracy, grows the red tape, all the while doing nothing to re balance accumulated wealth - everybody loses. 

But they still support it, only because it is punitive against high achievers.  They're already miserable, so are willing to tolerate a little bit more misery, if it means their superiors are going to suffer more misery.

aquascoot wrote on Jan 20^th, 2016 at 1:55pm:

or, possibly, why lefties shoot themselves in the foot when they call for higher taxes on the rich ;) ;) What do the rich really want? certainly not more money. they already have enough of that. so they dont want more money to spend it, they accumulate more money to "keep score" The rich want honor and respect. they want to be able to walk into a room full of strangers and be recognised as someone who matters. The lefts solution is just that we should tax the rich more. But this does not grasp the real motivation of the rich the rich pursue money because money in capitalism is the source of "honour" if you try to tax the rich, they will just take their money and move. The better strategy is to "seduce' the rich. Honour them for their benevolence. Honour is a powerful motivator, soldiers will die for a victoria cross (honour) scientists will slave away an entire life for a nobel prize (honour). yet where is the honour offered to the rich (who are largely hated upon) there is NO system to reward the rich for doing what we want them to do.... treat their workers well and produce safe useful and environmentally friendly products . Society should do a deal with capitalists. it should givbe them the honour (and love) they so desperately want . you see capitalists are  narcistists and ambitious. Set up a scheme for them being honoured for looking after their workers and the planet and they will do it. This isnt even a revolutionary idea. Adam Smith, one of the founders of capitalism recognised that people have 2 main motivations, the love of money and the love of glory . so rather then wait for the rich to grow halo's,  how much more sensible to seduce them with the most powerful of desires....the desire to be loved.

http://www.troll.me/images/bush/cool-story-bro-tell-it-again-if-you-have-time-thumb.jpg

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 20^th, 2016 at 2:06pm:

aquascoot wrote on Jan 20th, 2016 at 1:55pm: or, possibly, why lefties shoot themselves in the foot when they call for higher taxes on the rich ;) ;) What do the rich really want? certainly not more money. they already have enough of that. so they dont want more money to spend it, they accumulate more money to "keep score" The rich want honor and respect. they want to be able to walk into a room full of strangers and be recognised as someone who matters. The lefts solution is just that we should tax the rich more. But this does not grasp the real motivation of the rich the rich pursue money because money in capitalism is the source of "honour" if you try to tax the rich, they will just take their money and move. The better strategy is to "seduce' the rich. Honour them for their benevolence. Honour is a powerful motivator, soldiers will die for a victoria cross (honour) scientists will slave away an entire life for a nobel prize (honour). yet where is the honour offered to the rich (who are largely hated upon) there is NO system to reward the rich for doing what we want them to do.... treat their workers well and produce safe useful and environmentally friendly products . Society should do a deal with capitalists. it should givbe them the honour (and love) they so desperately want . you see capitalists are  narcistists and ambitious. Set up a scheme for them being honoured for looking after their workers and the planet and they will do it. This isnt even a revolutionary idea. Adam Smith, one of the founders of capitalism recognised that people have 2 main motivations, the love of money and the love of glory . so rather then wait for the rich to grow halo's,  how much more sensible to seduce them with the most powerful of desires....the desire to be loved. What? No horse story? You're an imposter. What have you done with the REAL Aquascoot? :P

Yes, I am quite suspicious.
Come on Aqua, placate us.
Say "it's just like a horse that wins .........."

aquascoot wrote on Jan 20^th, 2016 at 1:55pm:

or, possibly, why lefties shoot themselves in the foot when they call for higher taxes on the rich ;) ;) What do the rich really want? certainly not more money. they already have enough of that. so they dont want more money to spend it, they accumulate more money to "keep score" self-contradictory The rich want honor and respect.  earn it by your behaviour   they want to be able to walk into a room full of strangers and be recognised as someone who matters.   as what - a vulture or a decent caring human being? The lefts solution is just that we should tax the rich more. But this does not grasp the real motivation of the rich the rich pursue money because money in capitalism is the source of "honour" and in that pursuit they forsake all honour.  as jumped-up peasants they have no understanding of the word if you try to tax the rich, they will just take their money and move. then someone else will have a go - who cares? The better strategy is to "seduce' the rich. Honour them for their benevolence.  if indeed they have any Honour is a powerful motivator, soldiers will die for a victoria cross (honour) scientists will slave away an entire life for a nobel prize (honour). do not compare men of honour with business people - unless those busines people have earned it yet where is the honour offered to the rich (who are largely hated upon) where did they earn it there is NO system to reward the rich for doing what we want them to do.... treat their workers well and produce safe useful and environmentally friendly products . they are rewarded by their profits and their perks Society should do a deal with capitalists. it should give them the honour (and love) they so desperately want .  why?  They don't offer it to anyone else... you see capitalists are  narcistists and ambitious. Set up a scheme for them being honoured for looking after their workers and the planet and they will do it. no - they will not This isnt even a revolutionary idea. Adam Smith, one of the founders of capitalism recognised that people have 2 main motivations, the love of money and the love of glory . so rather then wait for the rich to grow halo's,  how much more sensible to seduce them with the most powerful of desires....the desire to be loved.

You need seriously to stop reading that beta male sh!t.  Lower yourselves to offering free honour to some beta loser who would be nothing without you and without more than a fair go that you most likely do not receive, and thus make of yourself a beta to a beta loser with no other talent.

K - Ryst!

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 20^th, 2016 at 2:39pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 20th, 2016 at 2:06pm: aquascoot wrote on Jan 20th, 2016 at 1:55pm: or, possibly, why lefties shoot themselves in the foot when they call for higher taxes on the rich ;) ;) What do the rich really want? certainly not more money. they already have enough of that. so they dont want more money to spend it, they accumulate more money to "keep score" The rich want honor and respect. they want to be able to walk into a room full of strangers and be recognised as someone who matters. The lefts solution is just that we should tax the rich more. But this does not grasp the real motivation of the rich the rich pursue money because money in capitalism is the source of "honour" if you try to tax the rich, they will just take their money and move. The better strategy is to "seduce' the rich. Honour them for their benevolence. Honour is a powerful motivator, soldiers will die for a victoria cross (honour) scientists will slave away an entire life for a nobel prize (honour). yet where is the honour offered to the rich (who are largely hated upon) there is NO system to reward the rich for doing what we want them to do.... treat their workers well and produce safe useful and environmentally friendly products . Society should do a deal with capitalists. it should givbe them the honour (and love) they so desperately want . you see capitalists are  narcistists and ambitious. Set up a scheme for them being honoured for looking after their workers and the planet and they will do it. This isnt even a revolutionary idea. Adam Smith, one of the founders of capitalism recognised that people have 2 main motivations, the love of money and the love of glory . so rather then wait for the rich to grow halo's,  how much more sensible to seduce them with the most powerful of desires....the desire to be loved. What? No horse story? You're an imposter. What have you done with the REAL Aquascoot? :P Yes, I am quite suspicious. Come on Aqua, placate us. Say "it's just like a horse that wins .........."

a horse has a very small logical brain but a very large reactive brain.
as you train it, your aim is always to reduce the reactive and increase the logical.

humans really have no excuse, they have a very large logical brain.

if they cant see that a soldier is willing to lay down his life for little money but for the glory of his sacrifice.
if they cant see that a scientist is willing to work his entire life for little money but for the glory of a discovery.

they should be able to see that very motivated ,ambitious and intelligent people (ie the Rich) can easliy be persuaded, seduced or even tricked into being benevolent, IF and ONLY IF society gives them the adulation for their benevolence that they so deeply crave.

if you think that the accumulation of mega wealth is anything but a neurosis that we need to help the rich deal with, if you think hating them will somehow change them, you truly have work to do on your logic.

the rich are like horses in some ways.
you cant out muscle them, you can only out think them  ;) ;)

aquascoot wrote on Jan 20^th, 2016 at 2:55pm:

a horse has a very small logical brain but a very large reactive brain.

ahhhh ... now I see where the appeal is for you. You're almost cousins.  :D :D :D

Actually the most common refrain from Victoria Cross winners is that they did their job and any one of their mates would have done the same.  It's often a matter of circumstances.....

Our latest SAS VC boys are all humble, and acknowledge that anyone else could have done the same under the circumstances.  They generally do not try to go out to win medals.

I like that line from the old Trooper in Band of Brothers:-

"Grampa, were you a hero?"

"No - but I served with a company of heroes."

That's more what it's all about.

aquascoot wrote on Jan 20^th, 2016 at 2:55pm:

if they cant see that a soldier is willing to lay down his life for little money but for the glory of his sacrifice. if they cant see that a scientist is willing to work his entire life for little money but for the glory of a discovery.

You are forgetting that most of the left devote their whole life to the pursuit of stupidity and what recognition or thanks do they receive, very little.

You think aquascoot? Clive Palmer was given the honour of representing the people in Canberra.

Latest on him is that his nickel workers who made him rich have been given the boot by him without their hard earned entitlements.

That just doesn't fit the equation does it?

aquascoot wrote on Jan 20^th, 2016 at 2:55pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 20th, 2016 at 2:39pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 20th, 2016 at 2:06pm: aquascoot wrote on Jan 20th, 2016 at 1:55pm: or, possibly, why lefties shoot themselves in the foot when they call for higher taxes on the rich ;) ;) What do the rich really want? certainly not more money. they already have enough of that. so they dont want more money to spend it, they accumulate more money to "keep score" The rich want honor and respect. they want to be able to walk into a room full of strangers and be recognised as someone who matters. The lefts solution is just that we should tax the rich more. But this does not grasp the real motivation of the rich the rich pursue money because money in capitalism is the source of "honour" if you try to tax the rich, they will just take their money and move. The better strategy is to "seduce' the rich. Honour them for their benevolence. Honour is a powerful motivator, soldiers will die for a victoria cross (honour) scientists will slave away an entire life for a nobel prize (honour). yet where is the honour offered to the rich (who are largely hated upon) there is NO system to reward the rich for doing what we want them to do.... treat their workers well and produce safe useful and environmentally friendly products . Society should do a deal with capitalists. it should givbe them the honour (and love) they so desperately want . you see capitalists are  narcistists and ambitious. Set up a scheme for them being honoured for looking after their workers and the planet and they will do it. This isnt even a revolutionary idea. Adam Smith, one of the founders of capitalism recognised that people have 2 main motivations, the love of money and the love of glory . so rather then wait for the rich to grow halo's,  how much more sensible to seduce them with the most powerful of desires....the desire to be loved. What? No horse story? You're an imposter. What have you done with the REAL Aquascoot? :P Yes, I am quite suspicious. Come on Aqua, placate us. Say "it's just like a horse that wins .........." a horse has a very small logical brain but a very large reactive brain. as you train it, your aim is always to reduce the reactive and increase the logical. humans really have no excuse, they have a very large logical brain. if they cant see that a soldier is willing to lay down his life for little money but for the glory of his sacrifice. if they cant see that a scientist is willing to work his entire life for little money but for the glory of a discovery. they should be able to see that very motivated ,ambitious and intelligent people (ie the Rich) can easliy be persuaded, seduced or even tricked into being benevolent, IF and ONLY IF society gives them the adulation for their benevolence that they so deeply crave. if you think that the accumulation of mega wealth is anything but a neurosis that we need to help the rich deal with, if you think hating them will somehow change them, you truly have work to do on your logic. the rich are like horses in some ways. you cant out muscle them, you can only out think them  ;) ;)

Thanks Aqua, that's a good horse posting too  :)
One of your better ones.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 20^th, 2016 at 3:16pm:

Actually the most common refrain from Victoria Cross winners is that they did their job and any one of their mates would have done the same.  It's often a matter of circumstances..... Our latest SAS VC boys are all humble, and acknowledge that anyone else could have done the same under the circumstances.  They generally do not try to go out to win medals. I like that line from the old Trooper in Band of Brothers:- "Grampa, were you a hero?" "No - but I served with a company of heroes." That's more what it's all about.

maybe all ozpol members are heros grap... you have to be sometimes to put up with some of the rubbish....maybe hero is a bit of a stretch...how about gods own followers.... ::) ::) maybe fds disciples  :D :D

This is all too vague. Let's go back to square one. If you make $2000 a month, you think a bloke making $10,000 is rich. He probably is not, but he could be if he didn't want so much. Too some degree, it depend what you want, but the guy making $2,000 looks rich to someone in the Sudan. And just when the bloke making $10Gs hits it big in the stockmarket, he finds he has to meet 15 different insurance policies on every aspect of his life and family, including his coffin, plus four cars, alimony, and his daughter drops out of school to live with a bass player. Rich sounds specific, but its relative until you get into really big figures which are simply not attainable for everyone.

The thing that amazes me most about the poor, the poor that have made a lifestyle decision to be poor, which is almost all of them, is the fact that they just cannot grasp the fact that the rich are paying for their welfare and if you get rid of the rich their will be no welfare, just poverty for all.

You'd think they'd be grateful that capitalism has provided such a wonderful society that they can just sit home on their fat arses and watch TV or post on Ozpolitics all day long if they want to, instead of working, for the rest of their lives, no questions asked. 

issuevoter wrote on Jan 20^th, 2016 at 6:02pm:

This is all too vague. Let's go back to square one. If you make $2000 a month, you think a bloke making $10,000 is rich. He probably is not, but he could be if he didn't want so much. Too some degree, it depend what you want, but the guy making $2,000 looks rich to someone in the Sudan. And just when the bloke making $10Gs hits it big in the stockmarket, he finds he has to meet 15 different insurance policies on every aspect of his life and family, including his coffin, plus four cars, alimony, and his daughter drops out of school to live with a bass player. Rich sounds specific, but its relative until you get into really big figures which are simply not attainable for everyone.

ah , indeed issuevoter and the marketers play on this  by trying to make everyone insecure.
beuatiful women having plastic surgery
rich guys who feel naked without their yacht , so they wear a 200,000 dollar watch so they can "take their yacht with them "when they go out to dinner.


But, (heres the point)  the very rich keep on accumulating money precisely BECAUSE of their own insecurity AND being hated on and despised is WHAT MAKES THEM INSECURE.

you give rhinehardt, murdoch, gerry hervey an "out", a way society can make them feel respected for "being benevolent" and they will take it.  Seduce them!!.
society can be like those gold digging partners who seduce them  ;) ;)

innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 20^th, 2016 at 6:25pm:

The thing that amazes me most about the poor, the poor that have made a lifestyle decision to be poor,

you really are farken deluded aren't you?

The really surprising thing is that you can be soooooo stupid and still make more than a lot of those poor you refer too.

John Smith wrote on Jan 20^th, 2016 at 6:57pm:

innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 20th, 2016 at 6:25pm: The thing that amazes me most about the poor, the poor that have made a lifestyle decision to be poor, you really are farken deluded aren't you? The really surprising thing is that you can be soooooo stupid and still make more than a lot of those poor you refer too.

Are you one of those people that have made a decision to be poor yet feel the need to lash out in order to create a subterfuge, welfare dregs want to be welfare dregs, its a lifestyle choice, the trouble is society looks down on them so they need to blame others for their self inflicted plight in order to have a little dignity, a dignity that they don't wish to acquire through work.   

Many of the rich are poor people with money and vice-versa.

aquascoot wrote on Jan 20^th, 2016 at 6:27pm:

issuevoter wrote on Jan 20th, 2016 at 6:02pm: This is all too vague. Let's go back to square one. If you make $2000 a month, you think a bloke making $10,000 is rich. He probably is not, but he could be if he didn't want so much. Too some degree, it depend what you want, but the guy making $2,000 looks rich to someone in the Sudan. And just when the bloke making $10Gs hits it big in the stockmarket, he finds he has to meet 15 different insurance policies on every aspect of his life and family, including his coffin, plus four cars, alimony, and his daughter drops out of school to live with a bass player. Rich sounds specific, but its relative until you get into really big figures which are simply not attainable for everyone. ah , indeed issuevoter and the marketers play on this  by trying to make everyone insecure. beuatiful women having plastic surgery rich guys who feel naked without their yacht , so they wear a 200,000 dollar watch so they can "take their yacht with them "when they go out to dinner. But, (heres the point)  the very rich keep on accumulating money precisely BECAUSE of their own insecurity AND being hated on and despised is WHAT MAKES THEM INSECURE. you give rhinehardt, murdoch, gerry hervey an "out", a way society can make them feel respected for "being benevolent" and they will take it.  Seduce them!!. society can be like those gold digging partners who seduce them  ;) ;)

............hey, that's just like horses................

innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 20^th, 2016 at 7:04pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 20th, 2016 at 6:57pm: innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 20th, 2016 at 6:25pm: The thing that amazes me most about the poor, the poor that have made a lifestyle decision to be poor, you really are farken deluded aren't you? The really surprising thing is that you can be soooooo stupid and still make more than a lot of those poor you refer too. Are you one of those people that have made a decision to be poor yet feel the need to lash out in order to create a subterfuge, welfare dregs want to be welfare dregs, its a lifestyle choice, the trouble is society looks down on them so they need to blame others for their self inflicted plight in order to have a little dignity, a dignity that they don't wish to acquire through work.

what makes you think I'm poor? sorry, but your rant is nothing but a deluded rant ... I know many rich who would disagree with you, and many poor who would flatten you.

John Smith wrote on Jan 20^th, 2016 at 8:41pm:

what makes you think I'm poor?

Your attitude, you can spot it a mile away, you are someone that wants to be poor in peace yet can't be because there are too many rich people around that are embarrassing you, this is why you work towards everyone else being poor, so that you can be poor and respectable instead of being poor and having people point their fingers at you. 

innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 20^th, 2016 at 8:50pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 20th, 2016 at 8:41pm: what makes you think I'm poor? Your attitude, you can spot it a mile away, you are someone that wants to be poor in peace yet can't be because there are too many rich people around that are embarrassing you, this is why you work towards everyone else being poor, so that you can be poor and respectable instead of being poor and having people point their fingers at you.

;D ;D ;D ;D

keep trying loser . One day you'll get something right. Sure, it'll probably be by accident, but that doesn't matter, you'll be right.

John Smith wrote on Jan 20^th, 2016 at 8:53pm:

innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 20th, 2016 at 8:50pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 20th, 2016 at 8:41pm: what makes you think I'm poor? Your attitude, you can spot it a mile away, you are someone that wants to be poor in peace yet can't be because there are too many rich people around that are embarrassing you, this is why you work towards everyone else being poor, so that you can be poor and respectable instead of being poor and having people point their fingers at you.  ;D ;D ;D ;D keep trying loser . One day you'll get something right. Sure, it'll probably be by accident, but that doesn't matter, you'll be right.

To be honest one thing I have learned is that there really is no right or wrong, except maybe in the case of might, is being a crazy leftoid idi ot wrong?, only to me, is being a member of isis wrong, only to me, to the followers of these doctrine it is 100% right, so how do we decide what is really wrong or right, probably only by total warfare and the one that wins whether they are a muslim fanatic, a leftist commie scumbag or a right wing nut is the one that is right.

The people will decide and they will side with the one that appears to be the most powerful and likely to win.

innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 20^th, 2016 at 2:27pm:

You are a lefty loser, but loser is probably not really the right word, a better word may be non achiever or underachiever but lets just say loser for now as this is a familiar term, now being a loser isn't necessarily a bad thing, if you want to be a loser you should be able to be a loser, not everyone wants to pursue a bucket of money and thats fair enough. Unfortunately for losers though there are winners and as long as their are winners around they make losers look bad, even if the losers want to be losers and are quite comfortable in being losers it doesn't matter, they still look bad.

When you say that statement innocent, several questions come to mind


1) What defines a loser
2) How do I fit that definition
3) How do you not fit that definition

?

innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 20^th, 2016 at 9:00pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 20th, 2016 at 8:53pm: innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 20th, 2016 at 8:50pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 20th, 2016 at 8:41pm: what makes you think I'm poor? Your attitude, you can spot it a mile away, you are someone that wants to be poor in peace yet can't be because there are too many rich people around that are embarrassing you, this is why you work towards everyone else being poor, so that you can be poor and respectable instead of being poor and having people point their fingers at you.  ;D ;D ;D ;D keep trying loser . One day you'll get something right. Sure, it'll probably be by accident, but that doesn't matter, you'll be right. To be honest one thing I have learned is that there really is no right or wrong, except maybe in the case of might, is being a crazy leftoid idi ot wrong?, only to me, is being a member of isis wrong, only to me, to the followers of these doctrine it is 100% right, so how do we decide what is really wrong or right, probably only by total warfare and the one that wins whether they are a muslim fanatic, a leftist commie scumbag or a right wing nut is the one that is right. The people will decide and they will side with the one that appears to be the most powerful and likely to win.

the truth of that is that human beings are naturally quite insecure and anxious.
they try to cover this up with ego but the deep neurosis remains.
the increasing feminisation of society has not helped.
the female psych (like it or not) seeks comfort and seeks security.
in short, this psyche seeks confidence and strength.

a man would be very foolish to "pander to a woman" . it is not the natural order of things.
leaders nowadays pander to the electorate. again, this is not the natural order of things.

how do ISIS attract recruits.


as you say, by having a direction and by having confidence .  nothing more.
i doubt they pander to their followers.

the whole problem stems back to men thinking they could understand women by "asking them what they want"

women responded  , more power, more making women the focus of mans mission in life, but this is not what women really want.

women want men to lead.
women want men to be rock solid despite their emotional outbursts. this allows the woman to feel safe.
women want to 'come along on the journey' but the man must be on purpose and leading.

maybe in 500 years women will be fit to lead, but not yet.
it is unnatural and it is dangerous.
and women, deep down, know it causes them to suppress their "feminine energy".
in short,  it kills them

aquascoot wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 9:18am:

women want men to lead. women want men to be rock solid despite their emotional outbursts. this allows the woman to feel safe. women want to 'come along on the journey' but the man must be on purpose and leading. maybe in 500 years women will be fit to lead, but not yet. it is unnatural and it is dangerous. and women, deep down, know it causes them to suppress their "feminine energy". in short,  it kills them

Stick with horses.

mothra wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 9:21am:

aquascoot wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 9:18am: women want men to lead. women want men to be rock solid despite their emotional outbursts. this allows the woman to feel safe. women want to 'come along on the journey' but the man must be on purpose and leading. maybe in 500 years women will be fit to lead, but not yet. it is unnatural and it is dangerous. and women, deep down, know it causes them to suppress their "feminine energy". in short,  it kills them Stick with horses.

YAWN,

horses and women are very similar.
they are flighty and emotional and seek comfort with a rock solid, grounded, confident man, who knows exactly where he's going, exactly how to get there and exactly who is coming along for the journey.

A man who lacks confidence and purpose is useless to a horse and a man who lacks confidence and purpose is useless to a woman.

She will grow to hate him .

What you are doing to me Mothra is the very common female activity of administering a "shiiit test"

Women do this to men all the time. they niggle and pick fights but what they are really saying is this.

"i need to know that you are a confident guy before i can trust you. you say you are confident, you say you are icey but are you really, i am going to rock the boat, i am going to get angry , i am going to see if you are what you say you are. If you back down, if you pander, if you become angry or emotional, i will know you are a counterfeit male and i cannot be safe with you"

unfortunately (for both men and women), most men nowadays fail shiiit tests badly.
they pander, try to earn brownie points, act like white knights and show lower status then the woman.
Deep down, she sees them as worthless to her  ;)

Does your wife know you think she is inferior?

Or, as i suspect, are you still a virgin?

aquascoot wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 9:40am:

mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 9:21am: aquascoot wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 9:18am: women want men to lead. women want men to be rock solid despite their emotional outbursts. this allows the woman to feel safe. women want to 'come along on the journey' but the man must be on purpose and leading. maybe in 500 years women will be fit to lead, but not yet. it is unnatural and it is dangerous. and women, deep down, know it causes them to suppress their "feminine energy". in short,  it kills them Stick with horses. YAWN, horses and women are very similar. they are flighty and emotional and seek comfort with a rock solid, grounded, confident man, who knows exactly where he's going, exactly how to get there and exactly who is coming along for the journey. A man who lacks confidence and purpose is useless to a horse and a man who lacks confidence and purpose is useless to a woman. She will grow to hate him . What you are doing to me Mothra is the very common female activity of administering a "shiiit test" Women do this to men all the time. they niggle and pick fights but what they are really saying is this. "i need to know that you are a confident guy before i can trust you. you say you are confident, you say you are icey but are you really, i am going to rock the boat, i am going to get angry , i am going to see if you are what you say you are. If you back down, if you pander, if you become angry or emotional, i will know you are a counterfeit male and i cannot be safe with you" unfortunately (for both men and women), most men nowadays fail shiiit tests badly. they pander, try to earn brownie points, act like white knights and show lower status then the woman. Deep down, she sees them as worthless to her  ;)

9/10 for Aqua

mothra wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 9:45am:

Does your wife know you think she is inferior? Or, as i suspect, are you still a virgin?

Hey, horses don't talk like that !

mothra wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 9:45am:

Does your wife know you think she is inferior? Or, as i suspect, are you still a virgin?

Ah , can you see that you are giving me another shiiit test with this comment mothra.
you want to see if i am the real deal.
I remain icy and rock solid in my position .
i hope this makes you feel a little safer in the world.
you can now enjoy your emotions (which is your feminine energy) safe in the knowledge that men are not all like women (though many are )  ;)

What do the poor really want?
certainly not more money.
they already have no chance of having enough of that.
so they dont want more money to spend it, they accumulate more money to "keep alive"
The poor want honor and respect. they want to be able to walk into a room full of strangers and be recognised as someone who matters.


The right's solution is just that we should tax the poor more.

But this does not grasp the real motivation of the poor

the poor pursue money because money in capitalism is the source of "food"

if you try to tax the poor, they will just take their money and move.

The better strategy is to "seduce' the poor.
Honour them for their benevolence.

Honour is a powerful motivator,
soldiers will die for a victoria cross (honour)
scientists will slave away an entire life for a nobel prize (honour).

yet where is the honour offered to the poor (who are largely hated upon)

there is NO system to reward the poor for doing what we want them to do....

treat their work well and produce safe useful and environmentally friendly products .

Society should do a deal with the poor. it should give them the honour (and love) they so desperately want .

you see the poor are  narcissists and ambitious.

Set up a scheme for them being honoured for looking after their work and the planet and they will do it.

This isn't even a revolutionary idea.

Adam Smith, one of the founders of capitalism recognised that people have 2 main motivations, the love of money and the love of glory .
so rather then wait for the poor to grow halo's and act like good servants,  how much more sensible to seduce them with the most powerful of desires....the desire to be loved.

All fixed - reads just as well that way, neh?

Your first-stated position assumes that everyone should pander to the rich as the providers of all.... nothing could be further from the truth.  Trickle-down doesn't work... ask any field-hand Indian farmer when we pour billions into providing education for the Indian middle and upper classes so they will prosper more...... the only trickle-down the farmer gets is a free ride down the Ganges once he dies......

Re: What the Poor dont understand about the Rich

Are you very rich aqua?

No, he owns horses.

aquascoot wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 10:08am:

mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 9:45am: Does your wife know you think she is inferior? Or, as i suspect, are you still a virgin? Ah , can you see that you are giving me another shiiit test with this comment mothra. you want to see if i am the real deal. I remain icy and rock solid in my position . i hope this makes you feel a little safer in the world. you can now enjoy your emotions (which is your feminine energy) safe in the knowledge that men are not all like women (though many are )  ;)

I'm not the one saying your gender is inherently inferior Horse Boy ... and you talk to me about shiiiit tests?

It's not my fault you've never met an alpha female. It's probably because you're a beta. Omega even?

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 11:29am:

No, he owns horses.

I just wondered if he practices what he preaches or is he just a theory man!

Has all the ideas and loves espousing them to others but lacks the get up and go to actually do it, too busy talking about whats needed.

I have known a couple of blokes like that.

Quote:

I'm not the one saying your gender is inherently inferior Horse Boy ... and you talk to me about shiiiit tests?

Yeah, you are.  If you dont value the traits with which women can compete with or outshine men, thats your dysfunction, and doesnt harm anyone but yourself.

... wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 12:16pm:

Quote: I'm not the one saying your gender is inherently inferior Horse Boy ... and you talk to me about shiiiit tests? Yeah, you are.  If you dont value the traits with which women can compete with or outshine men, thats your dysfunction, and doesnt harm anyone but yourself.

I think i know a little more about what women can and cannot do than you Honky. You're another one that thinks men are superior. Does your wife know you think like that?

I can only imagine the kind of woman you attracted.

And no. I'm not.

mothra wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 12:22pm:

... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 12:16pm: Quote: I'm not the one saying your gender is inherently inferior Horse Boy ... and you talk to me about shiiiit tests? Yeah, you are.  If you dont value the traits with which women can compete with or outshine men, thats your dysfunction, and doesnt harm anyone but yourself. I think i know a little more about what women can and cannot do than you Honky. You're another one that thinks men are superior. Does your wife know you think like that? I can only imagine the kind of woman you attracted.

yes, hah, probably Bo Derek, Elle Macpherson, some top ranked european tennis professional or the like.

You all should realise, I am 124% on Aquas side.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 12:26pm:

You all should realise, I am 124% on Aquas side.

So you think women are inferior to men Sprint?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 12:25pm:

mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 12:22pm: ... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 12:16pm: Quote: I'm not the one saying your gender is inherently inferior Horse Boy ... and you talk to me about shiiiit tests? Yeah, you are.  If you dont value the traits with which women can compete with or outshine men, thats your dysfunction, and doesnt harm anyone but yourself. I think i know a little more about what women can and cannot do than you Honky. You're another one that thinks men are superior. Does your wife know you think like that? I can only imagine the kind of woman you attracted. yes, hah, probably Bo Derek, Elle Macpherson, some top ranked european tennis professional or the like.

Honky couldnt attract a hooker in a brothel with a hand full of $100 bills!    ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

mothra wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 12:22pm:

... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 12:16pm: Quote: I'm not the one saying your gender is inherently inferior Horse Boy ... and you talk to me about shiiiit tests? Yeah, you are.  If you dont value the traits with which women can compete with or outshine men, thats your dysfunction, and doesnt harm anyone but yourself. I think i know a little more about what women can and cannot do than you Honky. You're another one that thinks men are superior. Does your wife know you think like that? I can only imagine the kind of woman you attracted.

Thats stupid.  Both are necessary and effectively useless without the other.

Its like saying that the day is "superior" to night, or that s nut is "superior" to a bolt. Its complete nonsense.

... wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 12:28pm:

mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 12:22pm: ... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 12:16pm: Quote: I'm not the one saying your gender is inherently inferior Horse Boy ... and you talk to me about shiiiit tests? Yeah, you are.  If you dont value the traits with which women can compete with or outshine men, thats your dysfunction, and doesnt harm anyone but yourself. I think i know a little more about what women can and cannot do than you Honky. You're another one that thinks men are superior. Does your wife know you think like that? I can only imagine the kind of woman you attracted. Thats stupid.  Both are necessary and effectively useless without the other. Its like saying that the day is "superior" to night, or that s nut is "superior" to a bolt. Its complete nonsense.

Yet your views on women are very much that they are inferior to you. It drips off you.

Even that denial suggests that women have their 'place'. Let me guess, the place you give us?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 12:26pm:

You all should realise, I am 124% on Aquas side.

A disciple of the deranged.

innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 20^th, 2016 at 9:00pm:

To be honest one thing I have learned is that there really is no right or wrong

Nope, you are definitely wrong.

mothra wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 12:30pm:

... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 12:28pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 12:22pm: ... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 12:16pm: Quote: I'm not the one saying your gender is inherently inferior Horse Boy ... and you talk to me about shiiiit tests? Yeah, you are.  If you dont value the traits with which women can compete with or outshine men, thats your dysfunction, and doesnt harm anyone but yourself. I think i know a little more about what women can and cannot do than you Honky. You're another one that thinks men are superior. Does your wife know you think like that? I can only imagine the kind of woman you attracted. Thats stupid.  Both are necessary and effectively useless without the other. Its like saying that the day is "superior" to night, or that s nut is "superior" to a bolt. Its complete nonsense. Yet your views on women are very much that they are inferior to you. It drips off you.

Inferior/superior is a pointless dichotomy unless you specify what theyre inferior/superior at.  Is a fish "superior" to a monkey?

... wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 12:38pm:

mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 12:30pm: ... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 12:28pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 12:22pm: ... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 12:16pm: Quote: I'm not the one saying your gender is inherently inferior Horse Boy ... and you talk to me about shiiiit tests? Yeah, you are.  If you dont value the traits with which women can compete with or outshine men, thats your dysfunction, and doesnt harm anyone but yourself. I think i know a little more about what women can and cannot do than you Honky. You're another one that thinks men are superior. Does your wife know you think like that? I can only imagine the kind of woman you attracted. Thats stupid.  Both are necessary and effectively useless without the other. Its like saying that the day is "superior" to night, or that s nut is "superior" to a bolt. Its complete nonsense. Yet your views on women are very much that they are inferior to you. It drips off you. Inferior/superior is a pointless dichotomy unless you specify what theyre inferior/superior at.

We are discussing general worth. Aqua argues that women need men to lead us because we are lost without them. We are, apparently, incapable of manifesting our own sovereignty.

I call bullshit.

I doubt you do.

Aqua didnt say anything about general worth.  Why would he - its a nonsense discussion.  What has more "general worth"?  A nut or a bolt?

... wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 12:45pm:

Aqua didnt say anything about general worth.  Why would he - its a nonsense discussion.  What has more "general worth"?  A nut or a bolt?

If women require men to lead them. then it follows that they are naturally inferior. This equates to general worth.

Seriously, did you need that spelled out for you?

We are only good as 'property'

It's an old and outdated argument. Some men haven't caught on yet. Nor some women, because somebody had to marry you sorry lot of misogynists..

mothra wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 12:27pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 12:26pm: You all should realise, I am 124% on Aquas side. So you think women are inferior to men Sprint?

Aquas correct on all things he says.

Mothra - no, I don't think women are inferior.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 12:49pm:

mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 12:27pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 12:26pm: You all should realise, I am 124% on Aquas side. So you think women are inferior to men Sprint? Aquas correct on all things he says. Mothra - no, I don't think women are inferior.

Aqua does.

mothra wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 12:48pm:

... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 12:45pm: Aqua didnt say anything about general worth.  Why would he - its a nonsense discussion.  What has more "general worth"?  A nut or a bolt? If women require men to lead them. then it follows that they are naturally inferior. This equates to general worth. Seriously, did you need that spelled out for you? We are only good as 'property' It's an old and outdated argument. Some men haven't caught on yet. Nor some women, because somebody had to marry you sorry lot of misogynists..

What has more general worth - a set of pedals or a set of handlebars? 

... wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 12:57pm:

mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 12:48pm: ... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 12:45pm: Aqua didnt say anything about general worth.  Why would he - its a nonsense discussion.  What has more "general worth"?  A nut or a bolt? If women require men to lead them. then it follows that they are naturally inferior. This equates to general worth. Seriously, did you need that spelled out for you? We are only good as 'property' It's an old and outdated argument. Some men haven't caught on yet. Nor some women, because somebody had to marry you sorry lot of misogynists.. What has more general worth - a set of pedals or a set of handlebars?

Let me guess ... women are the pedals?

The man steers while women do all the hard work.

mothra wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 1:03pm:

... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 12:57pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 12:48pm: ... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 12:45pm: Aqua didnt say anything about general worth.  Why would he - its a nonsense discussion.  What has more "general worth"?  A nut or a bolt? If women require men to lead them. then it follows that they are naturally inferior. This equates to general worth. Seriously, did you need that spelled out for you? We are only good as 'property' It's an old and outdated argument. Some men haven't caught on yet. Nor some women, because somebody had to marry you sorry lot of misogynists.. What has more general worth - a set of pedals or a set of handlebars?  Let me guess ... women are the pedals? The man steers while women do all the hard work.

If you like.

So, which one has more "general worth?"

... wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 1:07pm:

mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 1:03pm: ... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 12:57pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 12:48pm: ... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 12:45pm: Aqua didnt say anything about general worth.  Why would he - its a nonsense discussion.  What has more "general worth"?  A nut or a bolt? If women require men to lead them. then it follows that they are naturally inferior. This equates to general worth. Seriously, did you need that spelled out for you? We are only good as 'property' It's an old and outdated argument. Some men haven't caught on yet. Nor some women, because somebody had to marry you sorry lot of misogynists.. What has more general worth - a set of pedals or a set of handlebars?  Let me guess ... women are the pedals? The man steers while women do all the hard work. If you like. So, which one has more "general worth?"

It's a ridiculous analogy.

Answer the question.

Mothra   
Quote:

...............We are only good as 'property' It's an old and outdated argument. Some men haven't caught on yet...............

I doubt I have ever even met a woman who thought that.
She would not interest me.


Nor Aqua, the man amongst man.

How come I can only back him 124% ...........?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 1:09pm:

Mothra    Quote: ...............We are only good as 'property' It's an old and outdated argument. Some men haven't caught on yet............... I doubt I have ever even met a woman who thought that. She would not interest me. Nor Aqua, the man amongst man. How come I can only back him 124% ...........?

Aqua argues that women need men to lead us. It is an outdated and highly misogynistic argument.

mothra wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 1:08pm:

... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 1:07pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 1:03pm: ... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 12:57pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 12:48pm: ... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 12:45pm: Aqua didnt say anything about general worth.  Why would he - its a nonsense discussion.  What has more "general worth"?  A nut or a bolt? If women require men to lead them. then it follows that they are naturally inferior. This equates to general worth. Seriously, did you need that spelled out for you? We are only good as 'property' It's an old and outdated argument. Some men haven't caught on yet. Nor some women, because somebody had to marry you sorry lot of misogynists.. What has more general worth - a set of pedals or a set of handlebars?  Let me guess ... women are the pedals? The man steers while women do all the hard work. If you like. So, which one has more "general worth?" It's a ridiculous analogy. Answer the question.

Of course its ridiculous, thats the point. 

When it takes 2 parts to make a whole, neither part has more "general worth" than the other.  If you are a handlebar but judge yourself by criteria for pedals, youre just not going to be successful, nor happy.  Youd be better off focusing on what a good hadlebar can bring to the table.

... wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 1:16pm:

mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 1:08pm: ... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 1:07pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 1:03pm: ... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 12:57pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 12:48pm: ... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 12:45pm: Aqua didnt say anything about general worth.  Why would he - its a nonsense discussion.  What has more "general worth"?  A nut or a bolt? If women require men to lead them. then it follows that they are naturally inferior. This equates to general worth. Seriously, did you need that spelled out for you? We are only good as 'property' It's an old and outdated argument. Some men haven't caught on yet. Nor some women, because somebody had to marry you sorry lot of misogynists.. What has more general worth - a set of pedals or a set of handlebars?  Let me guess ... women are the pedals? The man steers while women do all the hard work. If you like. So, which one has more "general worth?" It's a ridiculous analogy. Answer the question. Of course its ridiculous, thats the point.  When it takes 2 parts to make a whole, neither part has more "general worth" than the other.  If you are a handlebar but judge yourself by criteria for pedals, youre just not going to be successful, nor happy.  Youd be better off focusing on what a good hadlebar can bring to the table.

So men and women have their allotted places then? Men lead, women follow?

Thank-you for at last answering the question, albeit by deflection and failed metaphor.

mothra wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 1:20pm:

... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 1:16pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 1:08pm: ... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 1:07pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 1:03pm: ... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 12:57pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 12:48pm: ... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 12:45pm: Aqua didnt say anything about general worth.  Why would he - its a nonsense discussion.  What has more "general worth"?  A nut or a bolt? If women require men to lead them. then it follows that they are naturally inferior. This equates to general worth. Seriously, did you need that spelled out for you? We are only good as 'property' It's an old and outdated argument. Some men haven't caught on yet. Nor some women, because somebody had to marry you sorry lot of misogynists.. What has more general worth - a set of pedals or a set of handlebars?  Let me guess ... women are the pedals? The man steers while women do all the hard work. If you like. So, which one has more "general worth?" It's a ridiculous analogy. Answer the question. Of course its ridiculous, thats the point.  When it takes 2 parts to make a whole, neither part has more "general worth" than the other.  If you are a handlebar but judge yourself by criteria for pedals, youre just not going to be successful, nor happy.  Youd be better off focusing on what a good hadlebar can bring to the table. So men and women have their allotted places then? Men lead, women follow? Thank-you for at last answering the question, albeit by deflection and failed metaphor.

If being in charge is so important to you, pair up with a weak man.  Luckily most people are more interested in being happy than being "right".  Priorities.

... wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 1:24pm:

mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 1:20pm: ... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 1:16pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 1:08pm: ... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 1:07pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 1:03pm: ... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 12:57pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 12:48pm: ... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 12:45pm: Aqua didnt say anything about general worth.  Why would he - its a nonsense discussion.  What has more "general worth"?  A nut or a bolt? If women require men to lead them. then it follows that they are naturally inferior. This equates to general worth. Seriously, did you need that spelled out for you? We are only good as 'property' It's an old and outdated argument. Some men haven't caught on yet. Nor some women, because somebody had to marry you sorry lot of misogynists.. What has more general worth - a set of pedals or a set of handlebars?  Let me guess ... women are the pedals? The man steers while women do all the hard work. If you like. So, which one has more "general worth?" It's a ridiculous analogy. Answer the question. Of course its ridiculous, thats the point.  When it takes 2 parts to make a whole, neither part has more "general worth" than the other.  If you are a handlebar but judge yourself by criteria for pedals, youre just not going to be successful, nor happy.  Youd be better off focusing on what a good hadlebar can bring to the table. So men and women have their allotted places then? Men lead, women follow? Thank-you for at last answering the question, albeit by deflection and failed metaphor. If being in charge is so important to you, pair up with a weak man.  Luckily most people are more interested in being happy than being "right".  Priorities.

I don't need to be in charge. I need to be an equal.

Seriously, get with the times.

mothra wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 1:28pm:

... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 1:24pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 1:20pm: ... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 1:16pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 1:08pm: ... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 1:07pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 1:03pm: ... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 12:57pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 12:48pm: ... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 12:45pm: Aqua didnt say anything about general worth.  Why would he - its a nonsense discussion.  What has more "general worth"?  A nut or a bolt? If women require men to lead them. then it follows that they are naturally inferior. This equates to general worth. Seriously, did you need that spelled out for you? We are only good as 'property' It's an old and outdated argument. Some men haven't caught on yet. Nor some women, because somebody had to marry you sorry lot of misogynists.. What has more general worth - a set of pedals or a set of handlebars?  Let me guess ... women are the pedals? The man steers while women do all the hard work. If you like. So, which one has more "general worth?" It's a ridiculous analogy. Answer the question. Of course its ridiculous, thats the point.  When it takes 2 parts to make a whole, neither part has more "general worth" than the other.  If you are a handlebar but judge yourself by criteria for pedals, youre just not going to be successful, nor happy.  Youd be better off focusing on what a good hadlebar can bring to the table. So men and women have their allotted places then? Men lead, women follow? Thank-you for at last answering the question, albeit by deflection and failed metaphor. If being in charge is so important to you, pair up with a weak man.  Luckily most people are more interested in being happy than being "right".  Priorities. I don't need to be in charge. I need to be an equal. Seriously, get with the times.

Every ship needs a captain. 

... wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 1:32pm:

mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 1:28pm: ... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 1:24pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 1:20pm: ... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 1:16pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 1:08pm: ... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 1:07pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 1:03pm: ... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 12:57pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 12:48pm: ... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 12:45pm: Aqua didnt say anything about general worth.  Why would he - its a nonsense discussion.  What has more "general worth"?  A nut or a bolt? If women require men to lead them. then it follows that they are naturally inferior. This equates to general worth. Seriously, did you need that spelled out for you? We are only good as 'property' It's an old and outdated argument. Some men haven't caught on yet. Nor some women, because somebody had to marry you sorry lot of misogynists.. What has more general worth - a set of pedals or a set of handlebars?  Let me guess ... women are the pedals? The man steers while women do all the hard work. If you like. So, which one has more "general worth?" It's a ridiculous analogy. Answer the question. Of course its ridiculous, thats the point.  When it takes 2 parts to make a whole, neither part has more "general worth" than the other.  If you are a handlebar but judge yourself by criteria for pedals, youre just not going to be successful, nor happy.  Youd be better off focusing on what a good hadlebar can bring to the table. So men and women have their allotted places then? Men lead, women follow? Thank-you for at last answering the question, albeit by deflection and failed metaphor. If being in charge is so important to you, pair up with a weak man.  Luckily most people are more interested in being happy than being "right".  Priorities. I don't need to be in charge. I need to be an equal. Seriously, get with the times. Every ship needs a captain.

And according to you, that's either a man or a woman in a relationship with a weak man ... i get it.

You're several decades out of date.

And anyway, no it doesn't. And a marriage is not a ship. Enough with the piss weak analogies already.

Does your wife know that you think of her as subservient?

mothra wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 1:10pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 1:09pm: Mothra    Quote: ...............We are only good as 'property' It's an old and outdated argument. Some men haven't caught on yet............... I doubt I have ever even met a woman who thought that. She would not interest me. Nor Aqua, the man amongst man. How come I can only back him 124% ...........? Aqua argues that women need men to lead us. It is an outdated and highly misogynistic argument.

124%

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 1:35pm:

mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 1:10pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 1:09pm: Mothra    Quote: ...............We are only good as 'property' It's an old and outdated argument. Some men haven't caught on yet............... I doubt I have ever even met a woman who thought that. She would not interest me. Nor Aqua, the man amongst man. How come I can only back him 124% ...........? Aqua argues that women need men to lead us. It is an outdated and highly misogynistic argument. 124%

So you do think women are inferior to men. Thanks for that. You shouldn't have denied it.

mothra wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 1:36pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 1:35pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 1:10pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 1:09pm: Mothra    Quote: ...............We are only good as 'property' It's an old and outdated argument. Some men haven't caught on yet............... I doubt I have ever even met a woman who thought that. She would not interest me. Nor Aqua, the man amongst man. How come I can only back him 124% ...........? Aqua argues that women need men to lead us. It is an outdated and highly misogynistic argument. 124% So you do think women are inferior to men. Thanks for that. You shouldn't have denied it.

I doubt I have ever even met a woman who thought that.
She would not interest me.


Nor Aqua, the man amongst man.

How come I can only back him 124% ...........?

Any man who trains horses could not think that of women.
It stands to reason.

Youve been handed the keys to the kingdom, but chose eternal unhappiness and dissatisfaction instead.

Not the choice id have made, but youre free to make your own choices, but not to avoid the consequences of them.

... wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 1:44pm:

Youve been handed the keys to the kingdom, but chose eternal unhappiness and dissatisfaction instead. Not the choice id have made, but youre free to make your own choices, but not to avoid the consequences of them.

You keep telling yourself that if it helps your cause.

Does your wife know you think of her as subservient?

mothra wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 1:47pm:

... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 1:44pm: Youve been handed the keys to the kingdom, but chose eternal unhappiness and dissatisfaction instead. Not the choice id have made, but youre free to make your own choices, but not to avoid the consequences of them. You keep telling yourself that if it helps your cause. Does your wife know you think of her as subservient?

No mothra.  My wife has lived with me for 10 years but has no idea what i think.   ::)

... wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 1:55pm:

mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 1:47pm: ... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 1:44pm: Youve been handed the keys to the kingdom, but chose eternal unhappiness and dissatisfaction instead. Not the choice id have made, but youre free to make your own choices, but not to avoid the consequences of them. You keep telling yourself that if it helps your cause. Does your wife know you think of her as subservient? No mothra.  My wife has lived with me for 10 years but has no idea what i think.   ::)

Well you picked a weak and probably stupid woman then. All you could attract?

And ugly. Dont forget ugly.

... wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 1:57pm:

And ugly. Dont forget ugly.

Unlike you, i don't a woman by her sexual desirability to men. I judge her by the content of her character.

And if a woman is knowingly subservient to man and has no problem with it, i call her weak and ignorant.

mothra wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 2:02pm:

... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 1:57pm: And ugly. Dont forget ugly. I judge her by the content of her character.

Obviously.  Which is why you've called a woman of whom you have zero knowledge "weak", "stupid" and now, "ignorant".

Such a cheerful soul aren't ya?

... wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 2:05pm:

mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:02pm: ... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 1:57pm: And ugly. Dont forget ugly. I judge her by the content of her character. Obviously.  Which is why you've called a woman of whom you have zero knowledge "weak", "stupid" and now, "ignorant". Such a cheerful soul aren't ya?

If she is willingly subservient, she is all of the above.

yes, you are getting a bit abusive there Mothra.

Mothra has referred to women as scrags in a previous post.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 2:09pm:

yes, you are getting a bit abusive there Mothra.

If a woman puts up with an attitude such as Honky's, where she is a second class citizen in her own home for all of the recognition of being deemed subservient, she is ignorant and weak.

I take back the stupid. That was uncalled for.

mothra wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 2:07pm:

... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:05pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:02pm: ... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 1:57pm: And ugly. Dont forget ugly. I judge her by the content of her character. Obviously.  Which is why you've called a woman of whom you have zero knowledge "weak", "stupid" and now, "ignorant". Such a cheerful soul aren't ya? If she is willingly subservient, she is all of the above.

Riker is "weak" "stupid" and "ignorant" now?

https://borgdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/picard-and-riker.jpg

Here was me thinking his advice and counsel was greatly respected and valued.  Silly me.

double plus good wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 2:09pm:

Mothra has referred to women as scrags in a previous post.

Only racist nutjobs that screech like banshees.

You know, the kind of woman you go for.

... wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 2:13pm:

mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:07pm: ... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:05pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:02pm: ... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 1:57pm: And ugly. Dont forget ugly. I judge her by the content of her character. Obviously.  Which is why you've called a woman of whom you have zero knowledge "weak", "stupid" and now, "ignorant". Such a cheerful soul aren't ya? If she is willingly subservient, she is all of the above. Riker is "weak" "stupid" and "ignorant" now? https://borgdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/picard-and-riker.jpg

A marriage is not a ship.

What is it with you and piss poor metaphors. Cant' you argue in plain English?

Who the hell made you Picard? You are a very far cry from Picard.

mothra wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 2:14pm:

double plus good wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:09pm: Mothra has referred to women as scrags in a previous post. Only racist nutjobs that screech like banshees. You know, the kind of woman you go for.

So you refer to women with opposing political views as scrags? How sexist!!

double plus good wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 2:16pm:

mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:14pm: double plus good wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:09pm: Mothra has referred to women as scrags in a previous post. Only racist nutjobs that screech like banshees. You know, the kind of woman you go for. So you refer to women with opposing political views as scrags? How sexist!!

Nope. Just screeching racists.

Does what you're doing here count as "screeching"?

mothra wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 2:16pm:

double plus good wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:16pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:14pm: double plus good wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:09pm: Mothra has referred to women as scrags in a previous post. Only racist nutjobs that screech like banshees. You know, the kind of woman you go for. So you refer to women with opposing political views as scrags? How sexist!! Nope. Just screeching racists.

That's not what you wrote before. Your post referred to any woman in the far rights movement. There was not mention of screeching in your post at all. So you are allowed to call women scrags and we can't because we are males hey?? :-?

... wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 2:19pm:

Does what you're doing here count as "screeching"?

Nope. You only consider it so becaise i am a woman with an opposing view point to yours.

It's part of your disease.

double plus good wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 2:19pm:

mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:16pm: double plus good wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:16pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:14pm: double plus good wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:09pm: Mothra has referred to women as scrags in a previous post. Only racist nutjobs that screech like banshees. You know, the kind of woman you go for. So you refer to women with opposing political views as scrags? How sexist!! Nope. Just screeching racists. That's not what you wrote before. Your post referred to any woman in the far rights movement. There was not mention of screeching in your post at all. So you are allowed to call women scrags and we can't because we are males hey?? :-?

Yes it was. I said the scrags who attend Reclaim Australia rallies.

Then you asked me if i thought women in the KKK were scrags. I said yes.

I think the men are scrags too .. but don;t let that get in the way of your witch hunt.

I wonder if mothra would get upset if I called her a left wing screeching scrag?? :-?

mothra wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 2:24pm:

double plus good wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:19pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:16pm: double plus good wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:16pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:14pm: double plus good wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:09pm: Mothra has referred to women as scrags in a previous post. Only racist nutjobs that screech like banshees. You know, the kind of woman you go for. So you refer to women with opposing political views as scrags? How sexist!! Nope. Just screeching racists. That's not what you wrote before. Your post referred to any woman in the far rights movement. There was not mention of screeching in your post at all. So you are allowed to call women scrags and we can't because we are males hey?? :-? Yes it was. I said the scrags who attend Reclaim Australia rallies. Then you asked me if i thought women in the KKK were scrags. I said yes. I think the men are scrags too .. but don;t let that get in the way of your witch hunt.

No mention of screeching it all , was there? Do you know the reclaim Australia women enough to refer to them as scrags?

double plus good wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 2:25pm:

I wonder if mothra would get upset if I called her a left wing screeching scrag?? :-?

Meh. You've called me worse.

Although i have failed to 'screech' at any point. I am merely typing. Funny how confronted you fellas are by a woman TYPING stuff at you.

Am i not subservient enough?

mothra wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 2:23pm:

... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:19pm: Does what you're doing here count as "screeching"? Nope. You only consider it so becaise i am a woman with an opposing view point to yours. It's part of your disease.

Yeah OK.  You're not picking fights over nothing or being abusive.  It's all in my head.

mothra wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 2:27pm:

double plus good wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:25pm: I wonder if mothra would get upset if I called her a left wing screeching scrag?? :-? Meh. You've called me worse. Although i have failed to 'screech' at any point. I am merely typing. Funny how confronted you fellas are by a woman TYPING stuff at you. Am i not subservient enough?

You've called me worse darling.

double plus good wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 2:26pm:

mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:24pm: double plus good wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:19pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:16pm: double plus good wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:16pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:14pm: double plus good wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:09pm: Mothra has referred to women as scrags in a previous post. Only racist nutjobs that screech like banshees. You know, the kind of woman you go for. So you refer to women with opposing political views as scrags? How sexist!! Nope. Just screeching racists. That's not what you wrote before. Your post referred to any woman in the far rights movement. There was not mention of screeching in your post at all. So you are allowed to call women scrags and we can't because we are males hey?? :-? Yes it was. I said the scrags who attend Reclaim Australia rallies. Then you asked me if i thought women in the KKK were scrags. I said yes. I think the men are scrags too .. but don;t let that get in the way of your witch hunt. No mention of screeching it all , was there? Do you know the reclaim Australia women enough to refer to them as scrags?

I know their ideology.  I find it thoroughly offensive and indicative of a small, uneducated mind.

Their attendance at such a rally pinpoints them as absolute bottom feeders.

... wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 2:27pm:

mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:23pm: ... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:19pm: Does what you're doing here count as "screeching"? Nope. You only consider it so becaise i am a woman with an opposing view point to yours. It's part of your disease. Yeah OK.  You're not picking fights over nothing or being abusive.  It's all in my head.

Nope. I'm not.

I took back the stupid. The rest stands.

And no fights over nothing. It took you how many pages to admit you consider your wife subservient?

mothra wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 2:28pm:

double plus good wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:26pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:24pm: double plus good wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:19pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:16pm: double plus good wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:16pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:14pm: double plus good wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:09pm: Mothra has referred to women as scrags in a previous post. Only racist nutjobs that screech like banshees. You know, the kind of woman you go for. So you refer to women with opposing political views as scrags? How sexist!! Nope. Just screeching racists. That's not what you wrote before. Your post referred to any woman in the far rights movement. There was not mention of screeching in your post at all. So you are allowed to call women scrags and we can't because we are males hey?? :-? Yes it was. I said the scrags who attend Reclaim Australia rallies. Then you asked me if i thought women in the KKK were scrags. I said yes. I think the men are scrags too .. but don;t let that get in the way of your witch hunt. No mention of screeching it all , was there? Do you know the reclaim Australia women enough to refer to them as scrags? I know their ideology.  I find it thoroughly offensive and indicative of a small, uneducated mind. Their attendance at such a rally pinpoints them as absolute bottom feeders.

An ideaolgy you oppose colours your opinion of these women  as being ugly (scrags), dumb, a of low socio economic order??? Is that judgement and prejudice? I thought you didn't like prejudice?

double plus good wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 2:31pm:

mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:28pm: double plus good wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:26pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:24pm: double plus good wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:19pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:16pm: double plus good wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:16pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:14pm: double plus good wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:09pm: Mothra has referred to women as scrags in a previous post. Only racist nutjobs that screech like banshees. You know, the kind of woman you go for. So you refer to women with opposing political views as scrags? How sexist!! Nope. Just screeching racists. That's not what you wrote before. Your post referred to any woman in the far rights movement. There was not mention of screeching in your post at all. So you are allowed to call women scrags and we can't because we are males hey?? :-? Yes it was. I said the scrags who attend Reclaim Australia rallies. Then you asked me if i thought women in the KKK were scrags. I said yes. I think the men are scrags too .. but don;t let that get in the way of your witch hunt. No mention of screeching it all , was there? Do you know the reclaim Australia women enough to refer to them as scrags? I know their ideology.  I find it thoroughly offensive and indicative of a small, uneducated mind. Their attendance at such a rally pinpoints them as absolute bottom feeders. An ideaolgy you oppose colours your opinion of these women  as being ugly (scrags), dumb, a of low socio economic order??? Is that judgement and prejudice? I thought you didn't like prejudice?

I didn't say ugly or specify their socio-economic group.

Dumb? Yes.

And it's their prejudice i don't like.

Jesus Double, keep up.

mothra wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 2:29pm:

It took you how many pages to admit you consider your wife subservient?

A few so far. 

You can drag it on for as many pages as you like, but I'll tell you right now - you won't get your "AHA!" moment. 

The last few pages of this topic have gone from ridiculous to totally bizarre.


... wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 1:55pm:

No mothra.  My wife has lived with me for 10 years but has no idea what i think.   ::)

^^^ I took this post to be sarcastic but it has created a barrage of abuse towards the poster.

Nothing Honky has said here (that I have read) indicates that he thinks women are inferior.  To me, he is trying to say that women/men in a partnership are part of a team and each play differing roles within that team.  Neither one is more worthy than the other,   

What's so terrible about that?   Isn't that the way it should be?  It doesn't mean that the male is the ultimate power and the woman is the slave.

We each have our strengths and weaknesses and women are equal to males at many levels but there are many other levels where we aren't equal and we should be working together as a team rather than beating our chests in a constant struggle about who has the most power.  Relationships/partnerships like that will always be destined to fail.

... wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 2:34pm:

mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:29pm: It took you how many pages to admit you consider your wife subservient? A few so far.  You can drag it on for as many pages as you like, but I'll tell you right now - you won't get your "AHA!" moment.

I already did.

... but it didn't come as a surprise.

Black Orchid wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 2:34pm:

The last few pages of this topic have gone from ridiculous to totally bizarre. ... wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 1:55pm: No mothra.  My wife has lived with me for 10 years but has no idea what i think.   ::) ^^^ I took this post to be sarcastic but it has created a barrage of abuse towards the poster. Nothing Honky has said here (that I have read) indicates that he thinks women are inferior.  To me, he is trying to say that women/men in a partnership are part of a team and each play differing roles within that team.  Neither one is more worthy than the other,    What's so terrible about that?   Isn't that the way it should be?  It doesn't mean that the male is the ultimate power and the woman is the slave. We each have our strengths and weaknesses and women are equal to males at many levels but there are many other levels where we aren't equal and we should be working together as a team rather than beating our chests in a constant struggle about who has the most power.  Relationships/partnerships like that will always be destined to fail.

Go back and read it again.

Barrage of abuse my arse.

mothra wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 2:24pm:

Yes it was. I said the scrags who attend Reclaim Australia rallies. Then you asked me if i thought women in the KKK were scrags. I said yes. I think the men are scrags too .. but don;t let that get in the way of your witch hunt.

I don't see a witch hunt but you are becoming quite abusive.  Settle down.

mothra wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 2:34pm:

And it's their prejudice i don't like. Jesus Double, keep up.

Keep up the elitism as well.

Black Orchid wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 2:34pm:

The last few pages of this topic have gone from ridiculous to totally bizarre.Honky wrote Today at 11:55am:No mothra.  My wife has lived with me for 10 years but has no idea what i think.    ^^^ I took this post to be sarcastic but it has created a barrage of abuse towards the poster.Nothing Honky has said here (that I have read) indicates that he thinks women are inferior.  To me, he is trying to say that women/men in a partnership are part of a team and each play differing roles within that team.  Neither one is more worthy than the other,   What's so terrible about that?   Isn't that the way it should be?  It doesn't mean that the male is the ultimate power and the woman is the slave.We each have our strengths and weaknesses and women are equal to males at many levels but there are many other levels where we aren't equal and we should be working together as a team rather than beating our chests in a constant struggle about who has the most power.  Relationships/partnerships like that will always be destined to fail.

Thank you, glad to see some can see the point, instead of trying to find something to be outraged about.

Black Orchid wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 2:37pm:

mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:24pm: Yes it was. I said the scrags who attend Reclaim Australia rallies. Then you asked me if i thought women in the KKK were scrags. I said yes. I think the men are scrags too .. but don;t let that get in the way of your witch hunt. I don't see a witch hunt but you are becoming quite abusive.  Settle down.

I'm not particularly influenced by the opinion of someone coming in towards the end of the fight.

If you as a woman don't mind being told that you cannot be a leader and that your duty is to be subservient to your man, then fine.

Don't expect it of me .. or to sit quietly whilst it is said.

... wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 2:39pm:

Black Orchid wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:34pm: The last few pages of this topic have gone from ridiculous to totally bizarre.Honky wrote Today at 11:55am:No mothra.  My wife has lived with me for 10 years but has no idea what i think.    ^^^ I took this post to be sarcastic but it has created a barrage of abuse towards the poster.Nothing Honky has said here (that I have read) indicates that he thinks women are inferior.  To me, he is trying to say that women/men in a partnership are part of a team and each play differing roles within that team.  Neither one is more worthy than the other,   What's so terrible about that?   Isn't that the way it should be?  It doesn't mean that the male is the ultimate power and the woman is the slave.We each have our strengths and weaknesses and women are equal to males at many levels but there are many other levels where we aren't equal and we should be working together as a team rather than beating our chests in a constant struggle about who has the most power.  Relationships/partnerships like that will always be destined to fail. Thank you, glad to see some can see the point, instead of trying to find something to be outraged about.

Nice try but no cigar .... "Captain".

mothra wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 2:39pm:

Black Orchid wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:37pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:24pm: Yes it was. I said the scrags who attend Reclaim Australia rallies. Then you asked me if i thought women in the KKK were scrags. I said yes. I think the men are scrags too .. but don;t let that get in the way of your witch hunt. I don't see a witch hunt but you are becoming quite abusive.  Settle down. I'm not particularly influenced by the opinion of someone coming in towards the end of the fight. If you as a woman don't mind being told that you cannot be a leader and that your duty is to be subservient to your man, then fine. Don't expect it of me .. or to sit quietly whilst it is said.

Mothra is a strongly opinionated woman. Stray from her opinions and another woman becomes an opinionated screeching scrag. ;D ;D ;D ;D She sure respects opinionated women. ;D ;D ;D

double plus good wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 2:42pm:

mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:39pm: Black Orchid wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:37pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:24pm: Yes it was. I said the scrags who attend Reclaim Australia rallies. Then you asked me if i thought women in the KKK were scrags. I said yes. I think the men are scrags too .. but don;t let that get in the way of your witch hunt. I don't see a witch hunt but you are becoming quite abusive.  Settle down. I'm not particularly influenced by the opinion of someone coming in towards the end of the fight. If you as a woman don't mind being told that you cannot be a leader and that your duty is to be subservient to your man, then fine. Don't expect it of me .. or to sit quietly whilst it is said. Mothra is a strongly opinionated woman.

Which is exactly why she scares you and Honks.

double plus good wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 2:42pm:

mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:39pm: Black Orchid wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:37pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:24pm: Yes it was. I said the scrags who attend Reclaim Australia rallies. Then you asked me if i thought women in the KKK were scrags. I said yes. I think the men are scrags too .. but don;t let that get in the way of your witch hunt. I don't see a witch hunt but you are becoming quite abusive.  Settle down. I'm not particularly influenced by the opinion of someone coming in towards the end of the fight. If you as a woman don't mind being told that you cannot be a leader and that your duty is to be subservient to your man, then fine. Don't expect it of me .. or to sit quietly whilst it is said. Mothra is a strongly opinionated woman. Stray from her opinions and another woman becomes an opinionated screeching scrag. ;D ;D ;D ;D She sure respects opinionated women. ;D ;D ;D

I already said Double, i call those men scrags too.

And i do like opinionated women. I just don;t like racists.

mothra wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 2:43pm:

double plus good wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:42pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:39pm: Black Orchid wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:37pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:24pm: Yes it was. I said the scrags who attend Reclaim Australia rallies. Then you asked me if i thought women in the KKK were scrags. I said yes. I think the men are scrags too .. but don;t let that get in the way of your witch hunt. I don't see a witch hunt but you are becoming quite abusive.  Settle down. I'm not particularly influenced by the opinion of someone coming in towards the end of the fight. If you as a woman don't mind being told that you cannot be a leader and that your duty is to be subservient to your man, then fine. Don't expect it of me .. or to sit quietly whilst it is said. Mothra is a strongly opinionated woman. Stray from her opinions and another woman becomes an opinionated screeching scrag. ;D ;D ;D ;D She sure respects opinionated women. ;D ;D ;D I already said Double, i call those men scrags too. And i do like opinionated women. I just don;t like racists.

You didn't call Reclaim Australia male member scrags. Your post was directed at females. Scrag is a term solely directed at females. I've never heard of a man being called a scrag. You sexist!!!

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 2:43pm:

double plus good wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:42pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:39pm: Black Orchid wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:37pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:24pm: Yes it was. I said the scrags who attend Reclaim Australia rallies. Then you asked me if i thought women in the KKK were scrags. I said yes. I think the men are scrags too .. but don;t let that get in the way of your witch hunt. I don't see a witch hunt but you are becoming quite abusive.  Settle down. I'm not particularly influenced by the opinion of someone coming in towards the end of the fight. If you as a woman don't mind being told that you cannot be a leader and that your duty is to be subservient to your man, then fine. Don't expect it of me .. or to sit quietly whilst it is said. Mothra is a strongly opinionated woman. Which is exactly why she scares you and Honks.

Not at all. She's a screeching scrag always going on about males.

double plus good wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 2:45pm:

mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:43pm: double plus good wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:42pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:39pm: Black Orchid wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:37pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:24pm: Yes it was. I said the scrags who attend Reclaim Australia rallies. Then you asked me if i thought women in the KKK were scrags. I said yes. I think the men are scrags too .. but don;t let that get in the way of your witch hunt. I don't see a witch hunt but you are becoming quite abusive.  Settle down. I'm not particularly influenced by the opinion of someone coming in towards the end of the fight. If you as a woman don't mind being told that you cannot be a leader and that your duty is to be subservient to your man, then fine. Don't expect it of me .. or to sit quietly whilst it is said. Mothra is a strongly opinionated woman. Stray from her opinions and another woman becomes an opinionated screeching scrag. ;D ;D ;D ;D She sure respects opinionated women. ;D ;D ;D I already said Double, i call those men scrags too. And i do like opinionated women. I just don;t like racists. You didn't call Reclaim Australia male member scrags. Your post was directed at females. Scrag is a term solely directed at females. I've never heard of a man being called a scrag. You sexist!!!

I use all insults non-gender specifically.

Can't catch me out there Double. Try harder.

double plus good wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 2:46pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:43pm: double plus good wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:42pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:39pm: Black Orchid wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:37pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:24pm: Yes it was. I said the scrags who attend Reclaim Australia rallies. Then you asked me if i thought women in the KKK were scrags. I said yes. I think the men are scrags too .. but don;t let that get in the way of your witch hunt. I don't see a witch hunt but you are becoming quite abusive.  Settle down. I'm not particularly influenced by the opinion of someone coming in towards the end of the fight. If you as a woman don't mind being told that you cannot be a leader and that your duty is to be subservient to your man, then fine. Don't expect it of me .. or to sit quietly whilst it is said. Mothra is a strongly opinionated woman. Which is exactly why she scares you and Honks. Not at all. She's a screeching scrag always going on about males.

I love men. I like good, kind, gentle, strong, intelligent, funny men.

Men who are not sexist, who are not racist, who are not Islamophobic and treat all people the same.

double plus good wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 2:45pm:

mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:43pm: double plus good wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:42pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:39pm: Black Orchid wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:37pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:24pm: Yes it was. I said the scrags who attend Reclaim Australia rallies. Then you asked me if i thought women in the KKK were scrags. I said yes. I think the men are scrags too .. but don;t let that get in the way of your witch hunt. I don't see a witch hunt but you are becoming quite abusive.  Settle down. I'm not particularly influenced by the opinion of someone coming in towards the end of the fight. If you as a woman don't mind being told that you cannot be a leader and that your duty is to be subservient to your man, then fine. Don't expect it of me .. or to sit quietly whilst it is said. Mothra is a strongly opinionated woman. Stray from her opinions and another woman becomes an opinionated screeching scrag. ;D ;D ;D ;D She sure respects opinionated women. ;D ;D ;D I already said Double, i call those men scrags too. And i do like opinionated women. I just don;t like racists. You didn't call Reclaim Australia male member scrags. Your post was directed at females. Scrag is a term solely directed at females. I've never heard of a man being called a scrag. You sexist!!!

Why would i refer to men when referring to the kind of mate you would attract?

Are you like Sir Bobby?

mothra wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 2:48pm:

double plus good wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:46pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:43pm: double plus good wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:42pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:39pm: Black Orchid wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:37pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:24pm: Yes it was. I said the scrags who attend Reclaim Australia rallies. Then you asked me if i thought women in the KKK were scrags. I said yes. I think the men are scrags too .. but don;t let that get in the way of your witch hunt. I don't see a witch hunt but you are becoming quite abusive.  Settle down. I'm not particularly influenced by the opinion of someone coming in towards the end of the fight. If you as a woman don't mind being told that you cannot be a leader and that your duty is to be subservient to your man, then fine. Don't expect it of me .. or to sit quietly whilst it is said. Mothra is a strongly opinionated woman. Which is exactly why she scares you and Honks. Not at all. She's a screeching scrag always going on about males. I love men. I like good, kind, gentle, strong, intelligent, funny men. Men who are not sexist, who are not racist, who are not Islamophobic and treat all people the same.

So you wouldn't go out with a uneducated male who's poor I assume going by one of your posts. Are bottom feeder males unattractive to you?

double plus good wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 2:53pm:

mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:48pm: double plus good wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:46pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:43pm: double plus good wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:42pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:39pm: Black Orchid wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:37pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:24pm: Yes it was. I said the scrags who attend Reclaim Australia rallies. Then you asked me if i thought women in the KKK were scrags. I said yes. I think the men are scrags too .. but don;t let that get in the way of your witch hunt. I don't see a witch hunt but you are becoming quite abusive.  Settle down. I'm not particularly influenced by the opinion of someone coming in towards the end of the fight. If you as a woman don't mind being told that you cannot be a leader and that your duty is to be subservient to your man, then fine. Don't expect it of me .. or to sit quietly whilst it is said. Mothra is a strongly opinionated woman. Which is exactly why she scares you and Honks. Not at all. She's a screeching scrag always going on about males. I love men. I like good, kind, gentle, strong, intelligent, funny men. Men who are not sexist, who are not racist, who are not Islamophobic and treat all people the same. So you wouldn't go out with a uneducated male who's poor I assume going by one of your posts. Are bottom feeder males unattractive to you?

Where did i say he had to be wealthy?

And education doesn't just mean book stuff.

Racists and sexists are very, very unattractive to me.

mothra wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 2:39pm:

Black Orchid wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:37pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:24pm: Yes it was. I said the scrags who attend Reclaim Australia rallies. Then you asked me if i thought women in the KKK were scrags. I said yes. I think the men are scrags too .. but don;t let that get in the way of your witch hunt. I don't see a witch hunt but you are becoming quite abusive.  Settle down. I'm not particularly influenced by the opinion of someone coming in towards the end of the fight. If you as a woman don't mind being told that you cannot be a leader and that your duty is to be subservient to your man, then fine. Don't expect it of me .. or to sit quietly whilst it is said.

Don't make assumptions about me.    You can be very extreme and aggressive in your approach and if someone told me that I cannot be a leader and that my duty is to be subservient I would just laugh at them.  I wouldn't go picking up a bat and hitting every other male within reach.

I don't agree with most of your views but I don't abuse you or make an issue out of it.   To you, it would seem, that would make me subservient, ignorant, a bottom feeder, dumb and a possible scrag.   

I am happy in my own skin.  I don't need to beat my chest and espouse superiority.

mothra wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 2:54pm:

double plus good wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:53pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:48pm: double plus good wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:46pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:43pm: double plus good wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:42pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:39pm: Black Orchid wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:37pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:24pm: Yes it was. I said the scrags who attend Reclaim Australia rallies. Then you asked me if i thought women in the KKK were scrags. I said yes. I think the men are scrags too .. but don;t let that get in the way of your witch hunt. I don't see a witch hunt but you are becoming quite abusive.  Settle down. I'm not particularly influenced by the opinion of someone coming in towards the end of the fight. If you as a woman don't mind being told that you cannot be a leader and that your duty is to be subservient to your man, then fine. Don't expect it of me .. or to sit quietly whilst it is said. Mothra is a strongly opinionated woman. Which is exactly why she scares you and Honks. Not at all. She's a screeching scrag always going on about males. I love men. I like good, kind, gentle, strong, intelligent, funny men. Men who are not sexist, who are not racist, who are not Islamophobic and treat all people the same. So you wouldn't go out with a uneducated male who's poor I assume going by one of your posts. Are bottom feeder males unattractive to you? Where did i say he had to be wealthy? And education doesn't just mean book stuff. Racists and sexists are very, very unattractive to me.

So am I being sexist if I call a woman a scrag?

Black Orchid wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 2:55pm:

mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:39pm: Black Orchid wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:37pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:24pm: Yes it was. I said the scrags who attend Reclaim Australia rallies. Then you asked me if i thought women in the KKK were scrags. I said yes. I think the men are scrags too .. but don;t let that get in the way of your witch hunt. I don't see a witch hunt but you are becoming quite abusive.  Settle down. I'm not particularly influenced by the opinion of someone coming in towards the end of the fight. If you as a woman don't mind being told that you cannot be a leader and that your duty is to be subservient to your man, then fine. Don't expect it of me .. or to sit quietly whilst it is said. Don't make assumptions about me.    You can be very extreme and aggressive in your approach and if someone told me that I cannot be a leader and that my duty is to be subservient I would just laugh at them.  I wouldn't go picking up a bat and hitting every other male within reach. I don't agree with most of your views but I don't abuse you or make an issue out of it.   To you, it would seem, that would make me subservient, ignorant, a bottom feeder, dumb and a possible scrag.    I am happy in my own skin.  I don't need to beat my chest and espouse superiority.

Well you just got me all wrong. Carry on though. I see you've made up your mind.

Honky is a terrible misogynist. We have come to blows in many threads where he has been downright abusive. You're making a value judgemnt on me taking him on about something you clearly don;t understand.

I made no judgement of you but if you wish to judge yourself, be my guest.

If you don't have a problem with what these men are saying then that is your prerogative. To be called aggressive for taking them on though is, indeed, sexist. You Black Orchid, are a sexist. You would not call me that if i were male.

I can hold my own and throw it back. Which is precisely what i have been doing.

Your decision to pitch your tent with the misogynists says far more about you than about me.

double plus good wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 2:57pm:

mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:54pm: double plus good wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:53pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:48pm: double plus good wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:46pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:43pm: double plus good wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:42pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:39pm: Black Orchid wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:37pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:24pm: Yes it was. I said the scrags who attend Reclaim Australia rallies. Then you asked me if i thought women in the KKK were scrags. I said yes. I think the men are scrags too .. but don;t let that get in the way of your witch hunt. I don't see a witch hunt but you are becoming quite abusive.  Settle down. I'm not particularly influenced by the opinion of someone coming in towards the end of the fight. If you as a woman don't mind being told that you cannot be a leader and that your duty is to be subservient to your man, then fine. Don't expect it of me .. or to sit quietly whilst it is said. Mothra is a strongly opinionated woman. Which is exactly why she scares you and Honks. Not at all. She's a screeching scrag always going on about males. I love men. I like good, kind, gentle, strong, intelligent, funny men. Men who are not sexist, who are not racist, who are not Islamophobic and treat all people the same. So you wouldn't go out with a uneducated male who's poor I assume going by one of your posts. Are bottom feeder males unattractive to you? Where did i say he had to be wealthy? And education doesn't just mean book stuff. Racists and sexists are very, very unattractive to me. So am I being sexist if I call a woman a scrag?

Do you call men scrags too?

Sorry that I see nothing to be offended by and outraged about but do carry on. 

I have said my piece   :)

Black Orchid wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 3:03pm:

Sorry that I see nothing to be offended by and outraged about but do carry on.  I have said my piece   :)

So you don;t have a problem with the notion that women can't be leaders and require men to control them?

You don;t have a problem with Honky considering his wife to be subservient?

You don't have a problem with women being called aggressive for standing up to misogyny? Oh wait, that was you.

Black Orchid wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 3:03pm:

Sorry that I see nothing to be offended by and outraged about but do carry on.  I have said my piece   :)

And who said i was offended or outraged? This is sport.

mothra wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 3:00pm:

double plus good wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:57pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:54pm: double plus good wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:53pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:48pm: double plus good wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:46pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:43pm: double plus good wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:42pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:39pm: Black Orchid wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:37pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:24pm: Yes it was. I said the scrags who attend Reclaim Australia rallies. Then you asked me if i thought women in the KKK were scrags. I said yes. I think the men are scrags too .. but don;t let that get in the way of your witch hunt. I don't see a witch hunt but you are becoming quite abusive.  Settle down. I'm not particularly influenced by the opinion of someone coming in towards the end of the fight. If you as a woman don't mind being told that you cannot be a leader and that your duty is to be subservient to your man, then fine. Don't expect it of me .. or to sit quietly whilst it is said. Mothra is a strongly opinionated woman. Which is exactly why she scares you and Honks. Not at all. She's a screeching scrag always going on about males. I love men. I like good, kind, gentle, strong, intelligent, funny men. Men who are not sexist, who are not racist, who are not Islamophobic and treat all people the same. So you wouldn't go out with a uneducated male who's poor I assume going by one of your posts. Are bottom feeder males unattractive to you? Where did i say he had to be wealthy? And education doesn't just mean book stuff. Racists and sexists are very, very unattractive to me. So am I being sexist if I call a woman a scrag? Do you call men scrags too?

No, it's word directed at females. You should know that, you use it. So if I call any woman a scrag am I being sexist??

mothra wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 3:05pm:

Black Orchid wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 3:03pm: Sorry that I see nothing to be offended by and outraged about but do carry on.  I have said my piece   :) Quote: So you don;t have a problem with the notion that women can't be leaders and require men to control them? If someone actually thinks that I certainly do not agree but I am not going to waste my time trying to change their mind.  I simply do not care what they think. [quote]You don;t have a problem with Honky considering his wife to be subservient?

I did not see Honky say that.   Link?

I saw him make (what I thought was) a sarcastic comment that was misunderstood.


Quote:

You don't have a problem with women being called aggressive for standing up to misogyny? Oh wait, that was you.

Our mindsets are totally different as you appear to want to see misogyny at every turn.  I don't look for it.  If I see ignorant comments I most often ignore them but, you have to admit, you seem to look for it in certain posters and then get outraged by comments that are either harmless, misunderstood or said purely to wind you up.

double plus good wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 3:13pm:

mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 3:00pm: double plus good wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:57pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:54pm: double plus good wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:53pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:48pm: double plus good wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:46pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:43pm: double plus good wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:42pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:39pm: Black Orchid wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:37pm: mothra wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 2:24pm: Yes it was. I said the scrags who attend Reclaim Australia rallies. Then you asked me if i thought women in the KKK were scrags. I said yes. I think the men are scrags too .. but don;t let that get in the way of your witch hunt. I don't see a witch hunt but you are becoming quite abusive.  Settle down. I'm not particularly influenced by the opinion of someone coming in towards the end of the fight. If you as a woman don't mind being told that you cannot be a leader and that your duty is to be subservient to your man, then fine. Don't expect it of me .. or to sit quietly whilst it is said. Mothra is a strongly opinionated woman. Which is exactly why she scares you and Honks. Not at all. She's a screeching scrag always going on about males. I love men. I like good, kind, gentle, strong, intelligent, funny men. Men who are not sexist, who are not racist, who are not Islamophobic and treat all people the same. So you wouldn't go out with a uneducated male who's poor I assume going by one of your posts. Are bottom feeder males unattractive to you? Where did i say he had to be wealthy? And education doesn't just mean book stuff. Racists and sexists are very, very unattractive to me. So am I being sexist if I call a woman a scrag? Do you call men scrags too? No, it's word directed at females. You should know that, you use it. So if I call any woman a scrag am I being sexist??

Like i said. I use all insult non-gender specifically. I call men bitches too.

It's not that hard to understand.