Let's take for example the way you consistently "discredit" me by throwing in my face that I don't believe men are victims of feminism. The ONLY truth in that is that I said that. However, you completely ignore the meaning and the clarification that I gave for that statement. You ignore the explanation of why I chose the word "victim" on purpose. You ignore that I believe men do "suffer", with a different meaning than "victim". You ignore that this is speaking in general, etc...
No wallflower, you blamed men as a class for feminism, saying therefore that individual men are not victims, then you apparently redefined victim to mean someone entirely blameless of all sins, as a form of evasion, in order to avoid retracting your ludicrous statement. Apparently all men are to blame for female behavior. Consider Elizabeth's recent remark - she thinks girls with tattoos and piercings were "abused by mom's boyfriend" In other words, the blame is shifted to men.
You take one little part of that truth, the fact that I said that, you ascribe your own meaning to it and run with it, ignoring AAALLL the other aspects of it, specifically because they don't fall in with the purpose YOU want to use it for. That's a half-truth used with an ulterior motive. Molded to what you want it to be rather than accepted in its entirety. You don't have to agree with me but at least be honest about my meaning.
The meaning of what you said is very clear. "Men are not the victims of feminism." You might as well as say feminism doesn't victimize anyone. It's a ludicrous statement - the FACT that you don't retract it and admit that it's ludicrous proves that there's no arguing rationally with women. You have your little rationalization hamster making excuses for the behavior of women in this society, and that's that.
This happens in nearly every post you make, whether it's to me or anyone else or even in speaking to or of perfect strangers.
If you have specific criticism, make them, but it's clear you don't.
You are very selective in your "truths" depending on how they suit you
Oh really? What's "the whole story" ? If I say something is true, acknowledge it. If you think something is left out, spell it out.
and that's the problem people have. If you feel like you are being ganged up on, it's because you are.
LOL, indeed I am.
However, it's not for sport,
It certainly has been about sport to some extent. Erin publicly admitted to baiting me.
it's because you have lost all credibility with these half-truths and obvious ulterior motives that keep getting worse and worse and infiltrating every single post you make.
I haven't lost credibility. People such as yourself and the delusional Raoul like to pretend that that's the case, but everyone here knows that I'm telling the truth. But if people are naive enough to believe these trad women are honest women on these subjects, they are very foolish indeed
Members are trying to make you aware of it because you can't move past it without awareness. Were you to start taking entire truths and dealing with them objectively
As I've said before, people who hate the truth, such as yourself, have to try to try to obscure it. If you can't admit that men are the victims of feminism, then there's no point in discussing truth with you. You won't admit the truth, because when your femitrad sensibilities are wounded, the truth has to suffer.
with a more encompassing perspective (as opposed to one-grain narrow), without trying to inject your own little spin, the response, I promise, would be different and you would be met with a lot more respect. As it is it's almost useless to try and agree with the truth that IS present in your posts because it is so tightly entwined with falsehood as to make separating them a very laborious task.
Like a typical woman, you're extremely vague. "It's almost useless to try to agree with the truth that is present in your posts"
In other words, yes, it's very clear I'm hitting home with these remarks, but you have to try to somehow contaminate the discussion.
Lighten the load, be objective, focus on subjects that aren't so personal as to obstruct your clarity and your interactions will be much more positive. Members are simply trying to find a sign, any sign, of objective self-awareness within you. We haven't seen it so far, but we keep trying, so I guess maybe deep down there's still hope that it's there or can be awakened.
Yes, it's all about personality, not about substance. That's why it's "useless" to acknowledge the truth. Uh-huh. I think we can all see why don't admit that men are the victims of feminism.
(Also, as an aside, because you also talk about people being against "traditional views" as an excuse for their disagreement with you --- traditional views are not necessarily Catholic or holy views.
And THERE WE HAVE IT - you reject tradition and reject that it's Catholic when you don't like it.
A view being traditional, such as the infamous double standard being discussed (for example), may be long-standing,
Did you just read the first post?
St. Thomas Aquinas said that the adultery of women was a more serious sin than the adultery of men.
Women who lied about being virgins in Old Testament times would be put to death. Women who lied about being a virgin to their husbands could find their marriages annulled because of an 'error of person"
If you don't like it, that's your tough luck, but don't pretend it's not Catholic.
but it does no one any good whatsoever and should be vehemently opposed.
Which proves you're opposed to Catholic Tradition.
A man who cannot contain himself in purity is in no position to "demand" it of anyone else,
A man is not making a "demand" when he refuses to marry an unchaste woman. It's not judging anyone's soul. It's making a judgement about whether or not a woman is a good candidate for being someone's wife. No man, no matter how sinful he is, is required to marry such a woman, just as no woman, even if she's lived as a prostitute, is required to marry the sort of man she would have reason to believe she could not trust.
much less a "subordinate" [woman].
Hahahaha, so now you pretend you think women are subordinate. If you read St. Thomas, he also covers that objection. Read the article by St. Thomas.
That's not even just a religious ideology that's just good leadership, recognized as such in all other areas of life too.)
A person could take all of my positions and defend them on these matters without being religious. It's really just common sense about natural morals.
Topic: Concupiscence of men versus women (Read 20161 times)