ChatterBank1 min ago
Whose next to march?
89 Answers
http://www.independen...exuality-2296475.html
Oh dear, oh dear, perhaps there should be a march for 'DRUNKS' say?
They could carry boards saying 'DRUNK', 'ALCOHOLIC' etc.
They should feel free to drink as much as they like, without some attacking them in the street or calling for a ban on alcohol.
After all is it anybody's business how much they drink?
Oh dear, oh dear, perhaps there should be a march for 'DRUNKS' say?
They could carry boards saying 'DRUNK', 'ALCOHOLIC' etc.
They should feel free to drink as much as they like, without some attacking them in the street or calling for a ban on alcohol.
After all is it anybody's business how much they drink?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
Andy-Hughes
/// I was about to fire off a riposte about your reference to me as "'following the pack anti AOG Brigade' demands," which obviously i deny but ...///
Please feel free Andy, I did not say anything about you that was not true, and if you wish me to research 'back answers' you have posted, I think you may agree?
Regarding your suggestion "simply ignore such posts. No-one can argue if there is no-one to argue against", perhaps you may have not noticed that I did in fact recently post a statement to the fact that "I was not going to get involved in their childish games".
This I have continued to do, except when a person enters a perfectly valid point, as was the reason in your case.
/// I was about to fire off a riposte about your reference to me as "'following the pack anti AOG Brigade' demands," which obviously i deny but ...///
Please feel free Andy, I did not say anything about you that was not true, and if you wish me to research 'back answers' you have posted, I think you may agree?
Regarding your suggestion "simply ignore such posts. No-one can argue if there is no-one to argue against", perhaps you may have not noticed that I did in fact recently post a statement to the fact that "I was not going to get involved in their childish games".
This I have continued to do, except when a person enters a perfectly valid point, as was the reason in your case.
AOG. My analogy put in the most simplistic of terms .
Suffragettes , wanted the right to vote. To raise awareness they embarked upon actions that would (get this) Raise awareness.
Now.... these 'marchers?' wanted to 'challenge attitudes to sexual violence'
To raise awareness they embarked upon actions that would (you know what's coming don't you ?) Raise awareness.
Now ...on behalf of all the 'marchers' can I thank you for delivering even more awareness on the subject of ....... 'challenging attitudes to sexual violence'
Well done you , sir, ......very well done.
Suffragettes , wanted the right to vote. To raise awareness they embarked upon actions that would (get this) Raise awareness.
Now.... these 'marchers?' wanted to 'challenge attitudes to sexual violence'
To raise awareness they embarked upon actions that would (you know what's coming don't you ?) Raise awareness.
Now ...on behalf of all the 'marchers' can I thank you for delivering even more awareness on the subject of ....... 'challenging attitudes to sexual violence'
Well done you , sir, ......very well done.
AOG - again, thanks for your response.
I would not wish you to go back and re-hash old arguments, life is too short, i am happy to accept that your argument in that instance is perfectly valid.
I do recall your post regarding 'childish arguments' - I of course leave it to your judgement as to which AB'ers you choose to engage in debate.
I would not wish you to go back and re-hash old arguments, life is too short, i am happy to accept that your argument in that instance is perfectly valid.
I do recall your post regarding 'childish arguments' - I of course leave it to your judgement as to which AB'ers you choose to engage in debate.
She may be a little behind me in criticising this march, but I think she has put up a much better argument than I obviously did, but then she is a professional..
http://www.dailymail....ant-womens-lives.html
http://www.dailymail....ant-womens-lives.html
"such as Kromo's rather rude comment "Grow a damn spine and stop whining", there is just no need for such rudeness.. "
Well, nothing else seems to work. I've not been rude to you before but I'm really really sick of you posting obtusely and then accusing everyone else of being stupid when they don't understand you.
If you were new to the internet and forum posting, I'd be considerably more forgiving. But you've been doing this for ages - you know full well what the limits of online communication are, and I think it's got to the point where if you fail to express yourself then you're the one who is responsible.
Regarding your wider point (which you eventually came out with) - these protestors are not trying to change the law, the law already says you can dress (more or less) as you please. What they're trying to do is challenge a rather nasty and fallacious set of attitudes that still exist in society - that women 'deserve it' if they dress provocatively. This is all abundantly clear in your own link.
Well, nothing else seems to work. I've not been rude to you before but I'm really really sick of you posting obtusely and then accusing everyone else of being stupid when they don't understand you.
If you were new to the internet and forum posting, I'd be considerably more forgiving. But you've been doing this for ages - you know full well what the limits of online communication are, and I think it's got to the point where if you fail to express yourself then you're the one who is responsible.
Regarding your wider point (which you eventually came out with) - these protestors are not trying to change the law, the law already says you can dress (more or less) as you please. What they're trying to do is challenge a rather nasty and fallacious set of attitudes that still exist in society - that women 'deserve it' if they dress provocatively. This is all abundantly clear in your own link.
I opened the link, saw it was an article by Melanie Philips and closed it again.
I can't remember the last time that woman had anything relevant to say...........tedious, in the extreme and does your cause no good, at all.
Not that you'll care, I imagine you'll be wielding your trusty sword of truth to protect your beloved DM.
I can't remember the last time that woman had anything relevant to say...........tedious, in the extreme and does your cause no good, at all.
Not that you'll care, I imagine you'll be wielding your trusty sword of truth to protect your beloved DM.
jack - I read the MP piece, so you don't have to.
i am amazed that a woman - much less an intelligent professional one paid considerable for her opinions, would write such utter tosh.
She see-saws between trying to opine that no woman deserves to be raped, but then counters that point by opining that women who dress inrevealing clothes do so because they wish to be leered at and fatasised about.
That not only demeans women who have the right to choose to dress exactly how they please in a western democracy, but reduces men to leering boorish dullards with nothing but sex at the end of a night out on their minds.
Yes some men are like that - but some men are rapists, and some women are sluts, but tarring everyone with the same brush helps no-one to be educated in the finrer points of respect and courtesy.
MP is trying to have it both ways - as a woman she wants to try and say that women are entitled to dress as they wish, as a Mail journalist she is mealy mouthedly saying that the '*** Walks' miss their point enitirely - because that is in line with the editorial policy and gerneral mindset of her readership.
It is very simple - a woman can walk out in a short skirt and a low top because she enjoys looking good, and attracting some attention. That is a universe away from any notion, however dressed up (sorry!) it is by the likes of MP - that such attention will end in assault by the end of the night because men have not learned that if a woman wishes physical contact, she will advise such - or not, as is her right.
It's not difficult. If the likes of MP educated their sons to grow up with sufficient respect for themselves and everyone else, this argument would not be taking place anywhere - on the street, in newspapers, or on here.
i am amazed that a woman - much less an intelligent professional one paid considerable for her opinions, would write such utter tosh.
She see-saws between trying to opine that no woman deserves to be raped, but then counters that point by opining that women who dress inrevealing clothes do so because they wish to be leered at and fatasised about.
That not only demeans women who have the right to choose to dress exactly how they please in a western democracy, but reduces men to leering boorish dullards with nothing but sex at the end of a night out on their minds.
Yes some men are like that - but some men are rapists, and some women are sluts, but tarring everyone with the same brush helps no-one to be educated in the finrer points of respect and courtesy.
MP is trying to have it both ways - as a woman she wants to try and say that women are entitled to dress as they wish, as a Mail journalist she is mealy mouthedly saying that the '*** Walks' miss their point enitirely - because that is in line with the editorial policy and gerneral mindset of her readership.
It is very simple - a woman can walk out in a short skirt and a low top because she enjoys looking good, and attracting some attention. That is a universe away from any notion, however dressed up (sorry!) it is by the likes of MP - that such attention will end in assault by the end of the night because men have not learned that if a woman wishes physical contact, she will advise such - or not, as is her right.
It's not difficult. If the likes of MP educated their sons to grow up with sufficient respect for themselves and everyone else, this argument would not be taking place anywhere - on the street, in newspapers, or on here.
jackthehat
/// I opened the link, saw it was an article by Melanie Philips and closed it again.///
Now there's a touch of open-mindedness (I don't think) if you like.
Or could it be an example of self-inflicted censorship?
/// I can't remember the last time that woman had anything relevant to say. ///
Now how could you possibly know that if you are accustomed to not reading what she says?
Admit it, you know very well you have a crafty peep, but your secret is safe with me, I want tell the others.
/// I opened the link, saw it was an article by Melanie Philips and closed it again.///
Now there's a touch of open-mindedness (I don't think) if you like.
Or could it be an example of self-inflicted censorship?
/// I can't remember the last time that woman had anything relevant to say. ///
Now how could you possibly know that if you are accustomed to not reading what she says?
Admit it, you know very well you have a crafty peep, but your secret is safe with me, I want tell the others.
