CFCfan:

Why not attorney?

They law dictates, you have no powers. You just argue based on the guidelines of the law.

What needs to change is the law. Otherwise the logical arguments are useless and that is what America has at the moment.

carefreewannabe:


How does it concern us?

The only thing that concerns me for NOW is that you call people illogical based on their gender and not on their individual abilities and that you think that your own experience is representative of 3,418,059,380 females, leaving out the FACT that you have called A VAST number of men fu*cktards here on this forum and certainly offline. I guess you forgot how logical they were.

This is what? This is SE*XISM.

I called them what they are based on what their gender biologically makes them most likely. That does not mean every single one of them is, but by and large they are. How is that sexist?

Is saying women are less powerful than men "sexist"?

I know it is sexist to a feminist.

Sagamite:


So if you say "Men cheat more" or "it is men that leave women holding the baby" does that make you "sexist" or you are speaking FACTS?

I don't make such statements. If I do, I will back them up with research.

I try not to judge people based on their gender, nationality, skin color or religious affiliation.
I try to be open-minded. Sorry, you have asked the wrong question.

Sagamite:


They law dictates, you have no powers. You just argue based on the guidelines of the law.

What needs to change is the law. Otherwise the logical arguments are useless and that is what America has at the moment.

You are soo right. But even some members of Congress are bought and paid for, by the Trial attorneys' union here.

cococandy:
cant be going over that shii all the time. I think you know what it is about. I understand why you don't like it. Nobody likes a system that takes away the undue advantage they have been having

I know what it is and I know it is sexist and men-hating.

If you disagree and know it is something else, then go over it for my sake. I have never been over it with you before.

Sagamite:


I called them what they are based on what their gender biologically makes them most likely. That does not mean every single one of them is, but by and large they are. How is that sexist?

Is saying women are less powerful than men "sexist"?

I know it is sexist to a feminist.

No Sagamite, you don't even know 1/4 of all 3,418,059,380 females in this world so your statement is for the simple minded. You can't do it with me.
I have seen too many du*mb men (also on this forum) to claim that logic is a male attribute and that females are generally less logical.

You are se*xist. This is what you are because it suits you just right.
You are not different from the men who oppressed women in the past by not allowing them to enter universities because they questioned their cognitive abilities.

carefreewannabe:


I don't make such statements. If I do, I will back them up with research.

I try not to judge people based on their gender, nationality, skin color or religious affiliation.
I try to be open-minded. Sorry, you have asked the wrong question.

I take each individual as they are, but if I need to talk about them generally, then I say what majority of them are. Simples!

Americans are IGNORANT!

Does that make me anti-Americans or anti-Yankist?

CFCfan:

You are soo right. But even some members of Congress are bought and paid for, by the Trial attorneys' union here.

Fck ME!

What a fcked up political system that country has.

Sagamite:


I take each individual as they are, but if I need to talk about them generally, then I say what majority of them are. Simples!

Americans are IGNORANT!

Does that make me anti-Americans or anti-Yankist?

And Nigerian or Polish or Japanese people are less ignorant? How do you know?

Sagamite:



If you disagree and know it is something else, then go over it for my sake.

I stopped doing that a while back. It is usually exhausting and a complete waste of time because the two sides never agree. If carefreewannabe couldn't convince you, I won't bother trying.

carefreewannabe:


No Sagamite, you don't even know 1/4 of all 3,418,059,380 females in this world so your statement is for the simple minded. You can't do it with me.
I have seen too many du*mb men (also on this forum) to claim that logic is a male attribute and that females are generally less logical.

You are se*xist. This is what you are because it suits you just right.
You are not different from the men who oppressed women in the past by not allowing them to enter universities because they questioned their cognitive abilities.

Oh, I need to know all Nigerians befor I know they are religious?

I need to know all Indians before I know they are a nation of short people?

Amazing logic!

carefreewannabe:


And Nigerian or Polish or Japanese people are less ignorant? How do you know?

That was not an answer for my question:

Does that make me anti-Americans or anti-Yankist?

Sagamite:


I will try and watch it over the Xmas period too.

You are an adult, you can choose not to enter into a situation where you will be worse off. That is your responsibility.

As long as the courts award people only what they have worked for or lost, I am fine. To EnlightenedSoul, that makes me "sexist".

Is this logic specific to women, or does it also apply to Sir Chris Hohn?

cococandy:
I stopped doing that a while back. It is usually exhausting and a complete waste of time because the two sides never agree. If carefreewannabe couldn't convince you, I won't bother trying.

Do it again instead of all this story na.

I have never been over it with you.

cococandy:
I stopped doing that a while back. It is usually exhausting and a complete waste of time because the two sides never agree. If carefreewannabe couldn't convince you, I won't bother trying.

I have and you have played your part too. You just need to look beneath the surface.

EnlightenedSoul:


Is this logic specific to women, or does it also apply to Sir Chris Hohn?

Huh??

Is that more woman logic?

Sagamite:


That was not an answer for my question:

Does that make me anti-Americans or anti-Yankist?

How is this question relevant?
Have I said you were anti-women?

No!

And you are not anti-American. You are prejudiced.
Most people are. It is more comfortable, isn't it?

So Sagamite, you are not anti-women and I NEVER said so, you are biased, se*xist, in the same way the laws are for their own reasons.

carefreewannabe:


How is this question relevant?
Have I said you were anti-women?

No!

And you are not anti-American. You are prejudiced.
Most people are. It is more comfortable, isn't it?

So Sagamite, you are not anti-women and I NEVER said so, you are biased, se*xist, in the same way the laws are for their own reasons.

Huh?

Okay. Maybe you are helping improving my English then.

So you are saying sexism is not anti-women?

I am assuming then that you mean it is a mechanism for being superior then?

So if I say Americans are ignorant people, does that mean I am trying to be superior but I am speaking the obvious?

Sagamite:


Huh?

Okay. Maybe you are helping improving my English then.

So you are saying sexism is not anti-women?

I am assuming then that you mean it is a mechanism for being superior then?

So if I say Americans are ignorant people, does that mean I am trying to be superior but I am speaking the obvious?

You don't have to be anti-women to be se*xist.
I don't have to be anti-white-people to be a racist.

I can say, like many people do, I have white friends so I am not racist but majority of them are evil.
So I am not against ALL white people but I make offensive and racist remarks about majority of them.

This is what you do with women. This is se*xism.

No need to split hairs, though.

carefreewannabe:


You don't have to be anti-women to be se*xist.
I don't have to be anti-white-people to be a racist.

I can say, like many people do, I have white friends so I am not racist but majority of them are evil.
So I am not against ALL white people but I make offensive and racist remarks about majority of them.

This is what you do with women. This is se*xism.

No need to split hairs, though.

The question I asked remains:

So if I say Americans are ignorant people, does that mean I am trying to be superior or I am speaking the obvious?

Sagamite:


The question I asked remains:

So if I say Americans are ignorant people, does that mean I am trying to be superior or I am speaking the obvious?

I didn't say you are trying to be superior when you are s*Exist and I didn't say you were trying to be superior when making such statements about Americans. I haven't yet mentioned the motives behind this kind of statements.

So the question is redundant for now.

What you do when you say so is to assume based on a very limited perspective and experience and what you do is to be offensive by making American people appear to be more ignorant than other nationalities.

Talking about the obvious then, are your statements an objective truth or your subjective perception?
And how will you determine that Americans are more ignorant than Turkish people?

What a gud share. That lady was smarter in calling him out.

carefreewannabe:


I didn't say you are trying to be superior when you are s*Exist and I didn't say you were trying to be superior when making such statements about Americans. I haven't yet mentioned the motives behind this kind of statements.

So the question is redundant for now.

What you do when you say so is to assume based on a very limited perspective and experience and what you do is to be offensive by making American people appear to be more ignorant than other nationalities.

Talking about the obvious then, are your statements an objective truth or your subjective perception?
And how will you determine that Americans are more ignorant than Turkish people?

Okay, I am a bit confused now.

So what is the definition of sexist if it does not mean:

- anti-women
- being superior to women

Sagamite:


Okay, I am a bit confused now.

So what is the definition of sexist if it does not mean:

- anti-women
- being superior to women

Stop!

I never said that being anti-women or feeling that one is superior to someone else based on gender is not se*xism.

I just said that you don't necessarily have to be anti-women to be se*xist or to make se*xist remarks and I said that your slogans on this thread are se*xist and they are.

If I write something like:

Black or white people I BRICK WALL I Intelligence then I am being ra*cist.
Most black or white people would freak out. I would even have to pay a fine in Germany for sharing such ra*cist remarks.

Your slogan was really offensive, biased and unfair.

carefreewannabe:


Stop!

I never said that being anti-women or feeling that one is superior to someone else based on gender is not se*xism.

I just said that you don't necessarily have to be anti-women to be se*xist or to make se*xist remarks and I said that your slogans on this thread are se*xist and they are.

If I write something like:

Black or white people I BRICK WALL I Intelligence then I am being ra*cist.
Most black or white people would freak out. I would even have to pay a fine in Germany for sharing such ra*cist remarks.

Your slogan was really offensive, biased and unfair.

I disagree.

If my slogan is true, then it is not sexist.

It might be uncomfortable and offensive, but it is not sexist.

If women say husbands are mostly promiscuous/unfaithful or men are the ones that leave a woman with the baby, you would not say that is sexist, and it is not sexist. It is an observable fact!

Sagamite:


Huh??

Is that more woman logic?

Can't recognize your own logic?

When Carefree said her piece, this is all you had to say:

"You are an adult, you can choose not to enter into a situation where you will be worse off. That is your responsibility"

I asked, "does this apply only to women (who often find themselves in the general scenario carefree described), or is it also applicable to Sir Hohn, i.e, men?

Divorce laws are common knowledge here. People get married knowing about the 'risk', and the division of marital property in case of divorce. Sir Hohn could've chosen not to enter into a situation where was worse off. Sir Hohn could've been more responsible. Sir Hohn could've opened a DAPT, or irrevocable trust. No?

Sagamite:


Okay, I am a bit confused now.

So what is the definition of sexist if it does not mean:

- anti-women
- being superior to women

That is what it means, I'm surprised the bipolar is not admitting it that you're sexist, ergo, superior and anti-women.

She must really like you.

EnlightenedSoul:


Can't recognize your own logic?

When Carefree said her piece, this is what you had to say:

"You are an adult, you can choose not to enter into a situation where you will be worse off. That is your responsibility"

Divorce laws are common knowledge. People get married knowing about the 'risk', and the division of marital property in case of divorce. Sir Hohn could've chosen not to enter into a situation where was worse off. Sir Hohn could've been more responsible. Sir Hohn could've opened a DAPT, or irrevocable trust.

Oh, so your "woman logic" came to the conclusion that since I said that then it makes sense and it is acceptable for laws to be openly bias against one sex?

Sorry, I meant ".....bias against men?" since that is the only thing acceptable to a feminist like you.

crackhaus:

That is what it means, I'm surprised the bipolar is not admitting it that you're sexist, ergo, superior and anti-women.

She must really like you.

Yes, she does.

Now shut up and let me chat with her.

Sagamite:


Yes, she does.

Now shut up and let me chat with her.

Wasn't planing on saying anything else boy, until you had to respond with the most obvious line - well, I was expecting a mind your business though.

Too easy and predictable, cheers...

Sagamite:


Oh, so your "woman logic" came to the conclusion that since I said that then it makes sense and it is acceptable for laws to be openly bias against one sex?

Sorry, I meant ".....bias against men?" since that is the only thing acceptable to a feminist like you.

The last bit totally went over my head. In actuality, the law is "biased" against the higher earner.

With divorce, there are two types of property: marital property and separate property. Your problem is that you're viewing all the $ in the marriage as separate property, which is usually not the case (though that's easily amendable if it's the course you wish to take).

When considering marriage, it's up the two individuals to make sure they're aware of their state laws, and prepare themselves for possible failure.

EnlightenedSoul:




The last bit totally went over my head. The law is "biased" against the higher earner.

Oh! Really?

So your argument is that the law is not sexist?

And who is mostly the higher earner?

What is the genesis of the law?

EnlightenedSoul:

With divorce, there are two types of property: marital property and separate property. Your problem is that you're viewing all the $ in the marriage as separate property, which is usually not the case (though that's easily amendable if it's the course you wish to take).

When considering marriage, it's up the two individuals to make sure they're aware of their state laws, and prepare for themselves for possible failure.

Why is it not the case that it is separate property?

Why is it not separable?

Is this your woman's logic to argue that the law is okay the way it is?