I think the key piece you are missing here, and really missing, is how woman have been and still are being treated as less than human.

Ah, agenda, reason to insist on a result, even when the present discussion is about two males.

If it is about two males it is because for some reason you decided it was about two males. Our current discussion is about my signature, which strangely enough isn't about males at all. Yet somehow, you made it into a discussion about males.

Wow Gary. You really are hung up on status.

No. You are.

In what sense? Do I think that I don't deserve a lesser "status" just because of my gender? Absolutely. Have I had to deal certain assumptions about who I am, what I am capable of and how I should behave that have negatively affected me because of my gender? Absolutely.

Do I constantly have to deal with men who try to tell me what I think, how to behave an what we should be talking about right now? Absolutely.

Do I have to deal with men who make assumptions about what I have read and what I know and then try to explain to me what I already know? Oh..more than you can ever realise. So. Damn. Often.

I don't particularly like the fawning over celebrities that society seems to enjoy. But I do know it occurs. As I've said elsewhere I don't herd well.

OBW if you think status is only $$$ or skin color or or X or Y chromosome or some other thing, then that is your personal prejudice showing. Status is what you make it. Another thought is does status exist without "entitlement mentality?" Best be careful with that one.

What has "status" got to do with being an equal human being. Are you suggesting that a person with status should have more rights?

You might wish to read Animal Farm.

ffs.

Animal farm is your utopia, even if you refuse to see it.

It seems to be more like your utopia if you ask me.

BTW never did I indicate, nor do I believe that women are not being treated as subhuman on this planet. However you need to be far less dense and realize someone may challenge your stated or unstated assumptions and preconditions about a position you have without disagreeing with you on that position.

Then I am not sure what it is that you took issue with as regards the link in my signature?

Is the way it is worded that is not precise enough for you? Then just say so. This whole other argument you have created is a Chimera and much ado about nothing.

Something you may not have seen http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/5/29/slut-shaming-study.html

I've seen lots of articles on slut shaming. There is nothing in this one that surprises me. I did grow up female after all.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Women are second-class citizens when pregnancy makes us potential criminals

A world in which all women of child-bearing age are considered 'pre-pregnant' is the stuff of nightmares

---

Reality Internet Personality

Women are second-class citizens when pregnancy makes us potential criminals

A world in which all women of child-bearing age are considered 'pre-pregnant' is the stuff of nightmares

Interesting, and makes one think.

Especially as most of the law makers are men!

---

Women are second-class citizens when pregnancy makes us potential criminals

A world in which all women of child-bearing age are considered 'pre-pregnant' is the stuff of nightmares

If they want to do narcotics get an abortion; if they don't want to get an abortion or stop doing narcotics they can give up all rights to welfare. See easy and everybody is happy.

---

If they want to do narcotics get an abortion; if they don't want to get an abortion or stop doing narcotics they can give up all rights to welfare. See easy and everybody is happy.

Batter you are trolling quite well. Totally off topic and and as delusional as the best ID has been able to come up with.

---

If they want to do narcotics get an abortion; if they don't want to get an abortion or stop doing narcotics they can give up all rights to welfare. See easy and everybody is happy.

Batter you are trolling quite well. Totally off topic and and as delusional as the best ID has been able to come up with.

start: +1; goto start.

---

If they want to do narcotics get an abortion; if they don't want to get an abortion or stop doing narcotics they can give up all rights to welfare. See easy and everybody is happy.

Batter you are trolling quite well. Totally off topic and and as delusional as the best ID has been able to come up with.

start: +1; goto start.

=============================================
batter up your statement require so much misinformation to state that,

that I will just add my
+2
to the above rather than compose the 20 pages it would take to let you know how wrong
you are.

---

I'm confused. That is good sound libertarian policy. No one interferes in the life or business of another.

---

I'm confused. That is good sound libertarian policy. No one interferes in the life or business of another.

what post are you replying to?

---

I'm confused. That is good sound libertarian policy. No one interferes in the life or business of another.

Being confused is the most benign explantion of your post, I guess it is better to be confused than the alternative.
IMO you joined ID in rational thinking.

---

I'm confused. That is good sound libertarian policy. No one interferes in the life or business of another.

Being confused is the most benign explantion of your post, I guess it is better to be confused than the alternative.
IMO you joined ID in rational thinking.

What not interfering in others business is a bad thing? I'm confused.

---

Women are second-class citizens when pregnancy makes us potential criminals

A world in which all women of child-bearing age are considered 'pre-pregnant' is the stuff of nightmares

If they want to do narcotics get an abortion; if they don't want to get an abortion or stop doing narcotics they can give up all rights to welfare. See easy and everybody is happy.

Batter Up...

I'll suggest you reread your post. Then comment.

It is very libertarian; drugs, abortion ok, welfare is not. Limited government. What's wrong with that?

---

I'm confused. That is good sound libertarian policy. No one interferes in the life or business of another.

Being confused is the most benign explantion of your post, I guess it is better to be confused than the alternative.
IMO you joined ID in rational thinking.

What not interfering in others business is a bad thing? I'm confused.

Batter that view point lacks all values.
Many business practicesshould be regulated.

---

Women are second-class citizens when pregnancy makes us potential criminals

A world in which all women of child-bearing age are considered 'pre-pregnant' is the stuff of nightmares

If they want to do narcotics get an abortion; if they don't want to get an abortion or stop doing narcotics they can give up all rights to welfare. See easy and everybody is happy.

Batter Up...

I'll suggest you reread your post. Then comment.

It is very libertarian; drugs, abortion ok, welfare is not. Limited government. What's wrong with that?

So who suffers from taking welfare away from mothers with children in this libertarian dystopia of yours? Or is that the point you are trying to make? That really we should be treating drug addiction as a disease rather than punishing people?

---

Reality Internet Personality

I'm confused. That is good sound libertarian policy. No one interferes in the life or business of another.

Being confused is the most benign explantion of your post, I guess it is better to be confused than the alternative.
IMO you joined ID in rational thinking.

What not interfering in others business is a bad thing? I'm confused.

Batter that view point lacks all values.
Many business practicesshould be regulated.

Batter Up is poking the bear. I am just not sure which bear he is trying to poke.

---

Reality Internet Personality

I'm confused. That is good sound libertarian policy. No one interferes in the life or business of another.

Being confused is the most benign explantion of your post, I guess it is better to be confused than the alternative.
IMO you joined ID in rational thinking.

What not interfering in others business is a bad thing? I'm confused.

Batter that view point lacks all values.
Many business practicesshould be regulated.

Batter Up is poking the bear. I am just not sure which bear he is trying to poke.

Anyone who wanders by which is why the word troll fits so well.

---

So who suffers from taking welfare away from mothers with children in this libertarian dystopia of yours? Or is that the point you are trying to make? That really we should be treating drug addiction as a disease rather than punishing people?

It is her choice; you are big on choice. If she wants a crack baby fine. If she wants help she has to help by not having a crack baby. Or she can abort the cells and burn the pipe all night long. Everybody's happy.

---

Ah Libertarians. Mixing teenage idiocy with sociopathy to form the ultimate amoral social order.

So who suffers from taking welfare away from mothers with children in this libertarian dystopia of yours? Or is that the point you are trying to make? That really we should be treating drug addiction as a disease rather than punishing people?

It is her choice; you are big on choice. If she wants a crack baby fine. If she wants help she has to help by not having a crack baby. Or she can abort the cells and burn the pipe all night long. Everybody's happy.

Is that "intellectualising" ... from a distance? Then may I suggest you meet "Teresa" - a very sweet Irish Roman Catholic girl who now lives a few doors down from me. Married at eighteen to what turned out to be not only an abusive man, but a crack cocaine dealer, by nineteen she was addicted and being passed around as a sex toy.

Then she got pregnant. Abortion was not an option she felt able to choose owing to her religious background - but she did seek help and that's how she came to move in to my street. She came off the drugs and watching her blossom and look forward to having her baby was so heartwarming :) She had so many plans for her and her baby's future :) I helped her decorate the baby's room and then went with her to the hospital to hold her hand when she went into labour.

But she never got to hold her baby girl. Social services had been waiting outside for it's first breath. Based on the initial blood tests that were done on "Teresa" when she had been told she was pregnant (even though they had all been clean since) they immediately took the baby into care.

"Teresa" gave up hope long before I did. She agreed to having her little Maria adopted three months later, because she wanted her to have a proper home. That was two years ago and "Teresa" is again an addict. Her husband now lives in my street and when their visitors get turned away empty handed, you really don't want to be outside at the same time. I've had to wait for some to finish urinating against my gate, for example, before being able to get back indoors on more than one occasion. Police call outs are now frequent and now, the only times I see Vicky is when she asks me for money, hiding her bruised and battered face behind a curtain of hair. She's also had two prosecutions for shop lifting in the last year.

Trust me. No one's happy.

All Philosophy's/Ideology's, if taken to their extreme's, are very destructive.

Or as was said during a discussion, while attending College many years ago, and never forgotten: "All Idea's are 50% correct. It is the 50% they are wrong that matters".

Or as my Foundational Thinking goes: "Worker's Of The World Unite. You Have Nothing To Lose But Your Chain's". That doesn't make me a proponent of the other Marxist Stupidity.

Libertarians have many interesting, and probably correct idea's.

+1 I agree.

Good post.