🚀 go-pugleaf

Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:

> In <343C4E5B.2B070F33@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> Alan Davis
> <adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> writes:
> >Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
> >> In <343BD1C1.BE6D6213@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> Alan Davis
> >> <adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> writes:
> >> >Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
> >> >> In <61eodj$g8m$1@Mars.mcs.net> karl@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger)
> writes:

> >> >> >(edit)

> >Nope, only that your refusal speaks to your
> >>choice to remain ignorant.  You did once post something
> >to the effect "I guess you would have to check with
> >the wives."
>            -----------
>             That's true.  I was refering to the discovery
>             of their reasons for wanting an inferior position.

And what inferior position would that be?Surely you don't mean a lifelong
sacred
partnership with a committed spouse, do you?

>             I suspect it has more to do with financial security
>             and the protection of  family and patriarchal
>             social status than it does with anything else,
>             but if I wanted to discover WHY they choose in-
>             feriority, talking to them would make sence;  I
>             don't have much interest in why they choose it.

That's your suspicion.  any evidence,even anecdotal, to support it?

Didn't think so.

>             I only have interest in the rules of the game and
>             what that might mean to women who choose to be
>             equals.
>             ---------------------------

Feminists offer nothing to women who wantmen who are lifelong, committed
partners.
They are called second class citizens.
If you talked with them, you might
find they totally disagree with you
about your mistaken perception of
their position.

<snip>

> >Pkers have disagreed with you ad nauseum,
> >>you post fantasies about what you *think*
> >they are doing, rather than what they *say*
> >and *do*.
>
>             -----------
>             They are perfectly within their rights to disagree.
>             I have no problem with that.  What they say and
>             do has, in itself, placed women in a position of
>             subordination.  To borrow a phrase from Covey,
>             it's in their "mission statement".  :]
>             -------------------------------
>

You are establishing your opinions asquite flaky.  They have published
their
mission statement, and you have made up
what you think their mission statement is.
If you have their mission statement, please
quote them.  Perhaps in your next post
you could include a reference.  Otherwise,
apologize for your character assassination
of people whom you have never met and
your mis-statements about what you think their
objective might be.

I think if you ever intend to argue before a judge,
you'd best find one sympathetic to your
hearsay.  Last I checked, it's inadmissible.

<snip>

> >> >Your honor!  I object! Calls for speculation!
> >> >(as do all your posts on this subject, Left)
> >>
> >> In your opinion.
> >
> >You've posted no facts, only your guesses.
> >

Still no facts, or even quotes;only biased, sexist opinions.

<snip>

> >Separation of church and state appears nowhere in
> >the Constitution.  It first appeared in a letter from Thomas
> >Jefferson to a New England Episcopal bishop.  The Supreme
> >Court talks about the 'establishment' clause, not the 'separation'
> >clause.
>             ----------
>             I'm glad you know where to find it.  Now what?
>             -----------

Don't espouse laws prohibiting the free expression ofreligion, I won't
espouse any respecting an establishment of it.

>                 ---------
>                 Would you expect a free black man in Africa expect
>                 to cooperate with those who wanted to enslave his
>                 friends and relatives.  Or, would you expect con-
>                 frontation?
>                 --------------------------

Your comparison is quite disingenuous.

Women married to Promise Keepers are
glad their husbands agree to 'submitting yourselves,
one to another."

It's called "commitment."

> >'This one' being the correction of men's sexist behavior; a position on
> >which most feminists>and PK take a stand.  PK-through loving
> >correction, feminists, through fines and jail>terms.
>
>             -----------
>             Does that mean that "loving correction" is going to
>             replace jailterms for men who abuse, beat and/or
>             kill their wives?   I mean, they may have been justified
>             if their wives refuse to submit.
>
>                 Lefty
> >

 Nope, and your twist is again disingenuous.

The loving correction is by the brothers who
help each other keep their promises.  I wasn't
talking about abuse at all, which is a crime.  I
was talking about sexism.  You correct it
with government programs.  Promise Keepers
do it with the love of Christ, changing one heart
at a time.

--
Al Davis ***** A Displaced Cub Fan in DC ***** adavis@seas.gwu.edu
I like two teams:  The Cubs and whoever is playing the Mets
Vote Santo into the Hall of Fame!
Let's play two!