EfemenaXY:


May you never age. Weight gain, age spots, and wrinkles will forever miss your street.

Leave the mortar and pestle to Jennykadry. Na she sabi pound Sagamite's yam pass...

Of course, I will age but my money won't.

I will just have to get younger husbands. The older ones may not be able to perform so well with age.

Sagamite:




You better keep you men apart. I suspect they might fancy each other more than they fancy you.

If they misbehave, I will send them back to mama and papa.

EfemenaXY:


Says who?

We are entitled to define what marriage should be or mean to us individually, according to you.

Now gimme T-fare money. I want to check out that young, athletic dude in the next village. I hear he's hawwt!

Tell your husband to give you the money quickly. He should not be so selfish and understand that you have needs that can't be satisfied when he only comes around every three weeks.

carefreewannabe:

Tell your husband to give you the money quickly. He should not be so selfish and understand that you have needs that can't be satisfied when he only comes around every three weeks.

Aha! Saga shebi you've heard her?

Oya gimmie T-fare money..

carefreewannabe:

Of course, I will age but my money won't.
I will just have to get younger husbands. The older ones may not be able to perform so well with age.

Lol!

You two are as bad as each other!

EfemenaXY:


Aha! Saga shebi you've heard her?

Oya gimmie T-fare money..

Sagamite:


Amsorry?

Are you saying there are no men interested in wearing high heels, accessories, skirts, having long hair, wearing accessories and make up?

Are you drowning in the ediot's ocean?

Heh. Milling about, eh? When DQ's came into mention, who was it shrieked, "Diversion!"? Yet you've the gall to insinuate I neglected their existence?

Your 'comparison' remains spurious at best.

I will come to the rest of your rubbish latter, otherwise the ocean you are in would become too big for people to see and I like people seeing.

Have at it.

EnlightenedSoul:


Heh. Milling about, eh? When DQ's came into mention, who was it shrieked, "Diversion!"? Yet you've the gall to insinuate I neglected their existence?

Your 'comparison' remains spurious at best.



Have at it.

You are in the ocean!

So it applies to everyone since there are men who also want to do the same?

So how is it sexist?

Can you see now how easy it is for me to make people like you look stewpid?

Sagamite:


You are in the ocean!

So it applies to everyone since there are men who also want to do the same?

So how is it sexist?

Can you see now how easy it is for me to make people like you look stewpid?

In the hopes comprehension will dawn, consider the models you're working with:

1. Ability to earn: Male vs Female
2. The use of female merchandise: Female vs Tranny male

Q1. Is the ability to make an income open to a particular sex? Yes or No
Q2. Does female merchandise target a particular sex? Yes or No.

Your 'comparison' would've been more apt had it refrained from targeting a gender-specific item(s).

What correlation does divorce, wherein both parties earning/money are tallied up and split, have in common with the tranny vs female populations use of female merchandise?! You had to go so far as to use trannies, which are a tiny subset within a subset of the male population?? Stop stretching to spurious extremes and comparisons

Past drowning, you've now hit the bottom of the ocean floor. A starfish is currently crammed up your ar.se

EnlightenedSoul:


In the hopes comprehension will dawn, consider the models you're working with:

1. Ability to earn: Male vs Female
2. The use of female merchandise: Female vs Tranny male

Q1. Is the ability to make an income open to a particular sex? Yes or No
Q2. Does female merchandise target a particular sex? Yes or No.

Your 'comparison' would've been more apt had it refrained from targeting a gender-specific item(s).

What correlation does divorce, wherein both parties earning/money are tallied up and split, have in common with the tranny vs female populations use of female merchandise?! You had to go so far as to use trannies, which are a tiny subset within a subset of the male population?? Stop stretching to spurious extremes and comparisons

Past drowning, you've now hit the bottom of the ocean floor. A starfish is currently crammed up your ar.se

Amsorry?

Let me expose your stupidity:

Are you saying Charly Boi of Nigeria, according to your woman logic, is female?

You are saying Tranny Males are not males?

That is how dumb you are in your attempt at swimming from the middle of the ocean to the shore?

Can you see now how easy it is for me to make people like you look stewpid?

Sagamite:


Amsorry?

Let me expose your stupidity:

Are you saying Charly Boi of Nigeria, according to your woman logic, is female?

You are saying Tranny Males are not males?

That is how dumb you are in your attempt at swimming from the middle of the ocean to the shore?

Can you see now how easy it is for me to make people like you look stewpid?

.

Hmmm

@ EnlightenedSoul

I came in here to knock Sagamite for no reason, and without reading his posts . But unfortunately, I did. And he's made a lot of sense.

His analogy is apt too.

The same way you think the cosmetics/accessories law is biased - because women will mostly be affected. So he thinks for divorce laws...because more men are currently on the receiving end.

Lol, comprehension was never my strong suit, so I might just be rafting as well...

BuddhaPalm:
@ EnlightenedSoul

I came in here to knock Sagamite for no reason, and without reading his posts . But unfortunately, I did. And he's made a lot of sense.

His analogy is apt too.

The same way, you think the cosmetics/accessories law is biased - because women will mostly be affected. So he thinks for divorce laws...because more men are currently on the receiving end.

Lol, comprehension was never my strong suit, so I might just be rafting as well...

Don't tell her.

I want to enjoy seeing her grasping at straws to escape the ocean she is in, while I toy with her and ridicule her.

"It applies to everyone, hence it is not sexist".

Feminist would say anything to make sure women get an advantage and men are victimised by the law.

Sagamite:


Don't tell her.

I want to enjoy seeing her grasping at straws to escape the ocean she is in, while I toy with her and ridicule her.

"It applies to everyone, hence it is not sexist".

Feminist would say anything to make sure women get an advantage and men are victimised by the law.

Lol. But she's, by far, one of the smartest girls on NL. Guess we all have our blind spots.

BuddhaPalm:


Lol. But she's, by far, one of the smartest girls on NL. Guess we all have our blind spots.

I just showed a video of HARVARD LAW PHD women that talks shyt when it comes to equality. She only understands how to favour women.

The blind spot is being a woman. When it comes to discussing issues that favour them, logic goes out of the window for a vast majority of them. Only "me, me, me" becomes logic. That is just how they are built.

That said, to be frank, I have not really noticed her much before on NL, so can't conclude how intelligent she is.

But no matter how intelligent she is, debating with Sagamite is always reputational suicide. Arguing about logic with the God of Logic is like arguing about Christianity with Jesus Christ or Islam with Prophet Mohammed.

I was born to develop, design and deliver logic with aplomb. I drop that shyt like its hot.

On the contrary, I'm the only one in this 'discussion' of ours who knows exactly what she's talking about.

And no, his comparison is not apt.

The crucial (and mind you, there are more, but I'll simply lay out the biggest) difference between Sagamite's imaginary law, and divorce law is that it doesn't pick at a gender-specific item. By supporting his analogy using female merchandise and it's use among the female population vs. drag-queens, he's succeeded in sexualizing his 'argument' from the get-go, thereby making his 'law' inherently sexist, and his argument moot and confused.

In divorce law, does the higher earner stand to lose the most? Most probably, yes. Does that make the law, in a way, unfavorable against the higher earner? Yes! Have I not said as much from early on?! But is the tag "higher-earner" sexualized? Is money sexualized? The ability to earn? Does men being so-called "more affected", make the law inherently sexist against men? Absolutely not.

From here on out, to determine the fairness of a law, let's not look at the law itself. No, let's take a sample of "who it affects" in the population, and from there on we'll be able to label it racist/sexist/ageist, and what have you accordingly.

Is that the depth of your man-logic, Sagamite? Have you set the starfish free, oh god of logic?

Sagamite:


I just showed a video of HARVARD LAW PHD women that talks shyt when it comes to equality. She only understands how to favour women.

The blind spot is being a woman. When it comes to discussing issues that favour them, logic goes out of the window for a vast majority of them. Only "me, me, me" becomes logic. That is just how they are built.

That said, to be frank, I have not really noticed her much before on NL, so can't conclude how intelligent she is.

But no matter how intelligent she is, debating with Sagamite is always reputational suicide. Arguing about logic with the God of Logic is like arguing about Christianity with Jesus Christ or Islam with Prophet Mohammed.

I was born to develop, design and deliver logic with aplomb. I drop that shyt like its hot.

Sagamite the dynamite

2sExy1:
Sagamite the dynamite

Let me toy with this feminist a bit more.

She has failed to realise I am so gaddam, fcking intelligent, if I choose to intellectually humiliate someone it is as easy as America defeating Samoa in a war.

EnlightenedSoul:
On the contrary, I'm the only one in this 'discussion' of ours who knows exactly what she's talking about.

And no, his comparison is not apt.

The crucial (and mind you, there are more, but I'll simply lay out the biggest) difference between Sagamite's imaginary law, and divorce law is that it doesn't pick at a gender-specific item. By supporting his analogy using female merchandise and it's use among the female population vs. drag-queens, he's succeeded in sexualizing his 'argument' from the get-go, thereby making his 'law' inherently sexist, and his argument moot and confused.

In divorce law, does the higher earner stand to lose the most? Most probably, yes. Does that make the law, in a way, unfavorable against the higher earner? Yes! Have I not said as much from early on?! But is the tag "higher-earner" sexualized? Is money sexualized? The ability to earn? Does men being so-called "more affected", make the law inherently sexist against men? Absolutely not.

From here on out, to determine the fairness of a law, let's not look at the law itself. No, let's take a sample of "who it affects" in the population, and from there on we'll be able to label it racist/sexist/ageist, and what have you accordingly.

Is that the depth of your man-logic, Sagamite? Have you set the starfish free, oh god of logic?

In the spirit of toying with you, instead of going for the kill, I would not even go to the sexism you know and everyone knows is in divorce. I would focus on ridiculing your denial arguments.

Are you still maintaining the there are no men who use or want to use these merchandise?

So how is it sexist since that is the case and the law did not specify a sex?

Secondly, you said earlier:

Abeg. let me laugh for a second before I continue.

AHHHHHH! Kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa

My belle o, my head o.

Okay, let me continue.

You said:

EnlightenedSoul:

1. Ability to earn: Male vs Female
2. The use of female merchandise: Female vs Tranny male

Q1. Is the ability to make an income open to a particular sex? Yes or No
Q2. Does female merchandise target a particular sex? Yes or No.

Why was your question not either:

1. Ability to earn: Male vs Female
2. The use and access of the merchandise is available for which sex: Female, Male or Both

Q1. Is the ability to make an income open to a particular sex?
Q2. Is the ability to use a merchandise open to a particular sex?

[size=18pt]OR[/size]

1. The most likely sex to be the primary bread winner is: Male vs Female
2. The use of female merchandise: Female vs Tranny male

Q1. Is the potential to make a higher income more favourable to a particular sex?
Q2. Does female merchandise target a particular sex?

You are the only one in the discussion "who knows exactly what she's talking about" but your logic failed and was bias there?

If women are more affected by a law, it is sexist, but if men are more affected by a law, it is not sexist?

That is your feminist's logic?



Feminist, can you see now how easy it is for me to make people like you look stewpid?

Sagamite, she has made some good points. It would be fair to acknowledge it.

I would have liked to see you elaborate on the separate property point, which men can use as an opportunity to protect themselves from unfair distribution of the property after divorce.

carefreewannabe:
Sagamite, she has made some good points. It would be fair to acknowledge it.

I would have liked to see you elaborate on the separate property point, which men can use as an opportunity to protect themselves from unfair distribution of the property after divorce.

She has not made any good point.

She has made a bias feminist stance.

A lie!

A blind denial!

An unprincipled sophism!

That is not a good point. That is the foundation of not only her argument, but her being. I torment such people. ..................EASILY!

That is one major difference between a feminist and a normal woman.

Sagamite:


She has not made any good point.

She has made a bias feminist stance.

A lie!

A blind denial!

An unprincipled sophism!

That is not a good point. That is the foundation of not only her argument, but her being. I torment such people. ..................EASILY!

That is one the major difference between a feminist and a normal woman.

I and Cococandy consider ourselves feminists, is that what you think of us?

Abeg, address the separate property argument. Why don't men make use of it?

I really want to learn, am open-minded.

carefreewannabe:


I and Cococandy consider ourselves feminists, is that what you think of us?

Abeg, address the separate property argument. Why don't men make use of it?

I really want to learn, am open-minded.

When I have finished humiliating her for her sophism, then I can address any other part of her questions.

Not before then.

I live for my slow, painful intellectual torture and public humiliations.

I am a psychopathic sadist and intelligensist when it comes to that process.

A morrafcking KKK when it comes to people with a different and lower intellect.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlxoPefvK5w

You are more on the advanced part of the feminist side of the women's spectrum than cococandy is, but you are not a feminist. Neither of you are.

You just mis-tag yourselves as one because of your concerns for women. If you know what a feminist is, both of you would not regard yourselves as one.

*edited

Sagamite:


[s]In the spirit of toying with you, instead of going for the kill, I would not even go to the sexism you know and everyone knows is in divorce. I would focus of ridiculing your denial arguments. [/s]

Are you still maintaining the there are no men who use or want to use these merchandise?

Seeing as I've consistently included them in all my posts, how am I "maintaining" the above??

So how is it sexist since that is the case and the law did not specify a sex?

Two words: Sexualized Items. Sexualized items specify a sex. Tranny males don't magically stop feminine products from being feminine products by using them.

Secondly, you said earlier:

[s]Abeg. let me laugh for a second before I continue.

AHHHHHH! Kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa

My belle o, my head o.

Okay, let me continue. [/s]

You said:


Why was your question not either:

[/color]

[size=18pt]OR[/size]

[color=#000099]

You are the only one in the discussion "who knows exactly what she's talking about" but your logic failed and was bias there?

Yes, I am. And that's becoming clearer and clearer by your every post.

Where did it fail??

Money is earned. Males (general) and females (general) earn money. Products are used. Feminine products are used by females (general) and tranny males (subset of a subset)

Simplified once again:

1) Money [neutral item] ---> ability to earn ---> Male vs. Female

2) Feminine products [sexualized item(s)] ---> use of product ---> Female vs. Tranny Male

If women are more affected by a law, it is sexist, but if men are more affected by a law, it is not sexist?

Nah, that would be you. Till this point you still haven't grasped my one, oft-repeated gripe with your 'law'. Hint: It hasn't been about "who's affected".

[s]That is your feminist's logic?



Feminist, can you see now how easy it is for me to make people like you look stewpid? [/s]

Jesus-Frickin-Christ

I've spelt it out multiple times, in the simplest terms I could think of, underlining, italicizing, and even using color to your benefit, and you still have trouble grasping anything I've had to say. You've been recycling the same statements/questions (complete with multiple smilies) with the tenacity of a blind bulldog.

Can you tell me WTF it is I'm supposed to do for you at this point?

Sagamite:


When I have finished humiliating her for her sophism, then I can address any other part of her questions.

Not before then.

I live for my slow, painful intellectual torture and public humiliations.

I am a psychopathic sadist and intelligensist when it comes to that process.

A morrafcking KKK when it comes to people with a different and lower intellect.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlxoPefvK5w

You are more on the advanced part of the feminist side of the women's spectrum than cococandy is, but you are not a feminist. Neither of you are.

You just mis-tag yourselves as one because of your concerns for women. If you know what a feminist is, both of you would not regard yourselves as one.

Ok, I am waiting.

EnlightenedSoul:
*edited


Seeing as I've consistently included them in all my posts, how am I "maintaining" the above??

Two words: Sexualized Items.

Explain how it is sexualised?

Men are not allowed to use it under the law?

EnlightenedSoul:

Yes, I am. And that's becoming clearer and clearer by your every post.

Where did it fail??

Money is earned. Males (general) and females (general) earn money. Products are used. Feminine products are used by females (general) and tranny males (subset of a subset)

Simplified once again:

1) Money [neutral item] ---> ability to earn ---> Male vs. Female

2) Feminine products [sexualized item(s)] ---> use of product ---> Female vs. Tranny Male



Nah, that would be you. Till this point you still haven't grasped my one, oft-repeated gripe with your 'law'. Hint: It hasn't been about "who's affected".



Jesus-Frickin-Christ

I've spelt it out multiple times, in the simplest terms I could think of, underlining, italicizing, and even using color to your benefit, and you still have trouble grasping anything I've had to say. You've been recycling the same statements/questions (complete with multiple smilies) with the tenacity of a blind bulldog.

Can you tell me WTF it is I'm supposed to do for you at this point?

OHHHH!

General? Not Major?

Not Colonel or Brigadier?

So who generally, majorly and colonelly makes more money in relationships and is affected by divorce laws?

Sagamite:


Explain how it is sexualised?

Men are not allowed to use it under the law?

Sexualized items specify a sex. Tranny males don't magically stop feminine products from being feminine products by using them.
!

General? Not Major?

Not Colonel or Brigadier?

So who generally, majorly and colonelly makes more money in relationships and is affected by divorce laws?

Oh??

40% of women in US are primary breadwinners. Of those female breadwinners, 37% are married mothers who have a higher income than their husbands, whilst 63% are single mothers (includes the divorced and the never married).

That leaves the other 60%, which consists of men who are the only breadwinners (both on the high-earning and not so high-earning at all end of the scale), and men who are the primary breadwinners (again both on the high and low end of the scale), but have contributing wives who make less money than they do.

EnlightenedSoul:


Sexualized items specify a sex. Tranny males don't magically stop feminine products from being feminine products by using them.
!

Amsorry?

How is it a feminine product when everyone can use it and some men use it?

Are men banned from using it?

What makes is sexualised?

EnlightenedSoul:

Oh? 40% of women in US are primary breadwinners.

Of those female breadwinners, 37% are married mothers who have a higher income than their husbands, (63%) are single mothers (includes divorced and the never married).

So now based on your stats, answer my question which you dodged answering :

So who generally, majorly and colonelly makes more money in relationships and is affected by divorce laws?

Let me give you a hint to answer it: "37% are married mothers who have a higher income than their husbands" That is, 37% of 40% is 14.8%.

Can you see now how easy it is for me to make people like you look stewpid?

Sagamite:


Amsorry?

How is it a feminine product when everyone can use it and some men use it?

Are men banned from using it?

What makes is sexualised?

LMFAO.

So now based on your stats, answer my question which you dodged answering :

So who generally, majorly and colonelly makes more money in relationships and is affected by divorce laws?

Let me give you a hint to answer it: "37% are married mothers who have a higher income than their husbands".

Can you see now how easy it is for me to make people like you look stewpid?

Dang! Reading comprehension issues. Read it again, Sagamite. Slowly this time.

EnlightenedSoul:


LMFAO!




Dang! Reading comprehension issues. Read it again, Sagamite. Slowly this time.

ANSWER MY GADDAM QUESTIONS, FEMINIST!

Amsorry?

How is it a feminine product when everyone can use it and some men use it?

Are men banned from using it?

What makes is sexualised?


So who generally, majorly and colonelly makes more money in relationships and is affected by divorce laws?

Use "generally" when you do.

Sagamite:


[s]ANSWER MY GADDAM QUESTIONS, FEMINIST!

Amsorry?

How is it a feminine product when everyone can use it and some men use it?

Are men banned from using it?

What makes is sexualised?
[/s]

So who generally, majorly and colonelly makes more money in relationships and is affected by divorce laws?

Use "generally" when you do.

@ crossed out: Sorry, I can't help you further with that. I'm not answering stu.pid questions. Feminine products = Sexualized items. End of!

60% of US men are primary breadwinners. Only 7% of that accounts for the 'traditional structure' wherein the female is a full-time housekeeper w/ no income, and that would be the only time the male is only one affected by the division of divorce assets.

EnlightenedSoul:


@ crossed out: Sorry, I can't help you further with that. I'm not answering stu.pid questions. Feminine products = Sexualized items. End of!

What stewpid questions?

You can not explain your moronic excuse?

What makes them feminine products when men and women use and can use them?

How is it sexualised?

What stops Charly Boi from going to buy himself a skirt or wear make-up?

When he does, he is female, according to your feminist logic?

EnlightenedSoul:

60% of US men are primary breadwinners. Only 7% of that accounts the 'traditional structure' wherein the female is a full-time housekeeper w/ no income, and that would be the only time the male is only one affected by the division of divorce assets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-WPlvZguZ4

Easy question:

So who generally, majorly and colonelly makes more money in relationships and is affected by divorce laws?

ANSWER THE GADDAM QUESTION and lets finish your public portrayal as a moronic ediot swimming in an ediot's ocean and made a mistake of bringing moronic feminist arguments to your GOD!

Sagamite:


[s]What stewpid questions?

You can not explain your moronic excuse?

What makes them feminine products when men and women use and can use them?

How is it sexualised?

What stops Charly Boi from going to buy himself a skirt or wear make-up?

When he does, he is female, according to your feminist logic?




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-WPlvZguZ4

Easy question:

So who generally, majorly and colonelly makes more money in relationships and is affected by divorce laws?

ANSWER THE GADDAM QUESTION and lets finish your public portrayal as a moronic ediot swimming in an ediot's ocean and made a mistake of bringing moronic feminist arguments to your GOD![/s]

Effing hell! This is me, internally:



I've answered all your valid questions. Next!