Yeah, a waste of time when you can be spending it on applying the already revealed truths to man.

Speaking truth is not a waste of time.

Ecclesiasticus is canon. It's truth. Quit speculating on things that don't even matter, but are designed to continue the false notion of some intrinsic female innocence.

Who said anything about intrinsic female innocence? Eve sinned and the fall did not occur because she was not the head of the family. When the head of the family sinned, the fall resulted from the person with authority. Therefore "As in Adam all sinned. . ."

.
In your attempt to draw attention to the faults of women, you actually do the opposite.  In your view Adam becomes less than a man, absolved (colloquially speaking) of responsibility because women are just that powerful and a man just can't do anything to control himself when given suggestions (obviously there's some truth to this, but nowhere near as much as you're contending).  
.
I think you have some issues to sort through.

That irony was not lost on me either.

From the same book:

Chapter 2 [II.]— If Adam Had Not Sinned, He Would Never Have Died.

They who say that Adam was so formed that he would even without any demerit of sin have died, not as the penalty of sin, but from the necessity of his being, endeavour indeed to refer that passage in the law, which says: "On the day you eat thereof you shall surely die," Genesis 2:17 not to the death of the body, but to that death of the soul which takes place in sin. It is the unbelievers who have died this death, to whom the Lord pointed when He said, "Let the dead bury their dead." Now what will be their answer, when we read that God, when reproving and sentencing the first man after his sin, said to him, "Dust you are, and unto dust shall you return?" Genesis 3:19 For it was not in respect of his soul that he was "dust," but clearly by reason of his body, and it was by the death of the self-same body that he was destined to "return to dust." Still, although it was by reason of his body that he was dust, and although he bare about the natural body in which he was created, he would, if he had not sinned, have been changed into a spiritual body, and would have passed into the incorruptible state, which is promised to the faithful and the saints, without the peril of death. 1 Corinthians 15:52-53 And for this issue we not only are conscious in ourselves of having an earnest desire, but we learn it from the apostle's intimation, when he says: "For in this we groan, longing to be clothed upon with our habitation which is from heaven; if so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened; not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality may be swallowed up of life." 2 Corinthians 5:2-4 Therefore, if Adam had not sinned, he would not have been divested of his body, but would have been clothed upon with immortality and incorruption, that "mortality might have been swallowed up of life;" that is, that he might have passed from the natural body into the spiritual body.

The whole point of my post was that the New Testament completes and fulfills the Old Testament. Did you fail to comprehend the words in the scripture passages?

Reiteration due to your cranial density:

and Cera made one of the biggest fallacies I've seen on this forum. She cites two Biblical passages, which have absolutely no relevance to original sin, that show the New fulfilling the Old, then she erroneously proceeds to use that as a parallel to God somehow abrogating the truth (Ecclesiasticus 25:33) of the Old Testament with the New Testament. Truth can't be revoked, because God is Truth, and He doesn't change. He is the same in the New Testament as in the Old Testament.

.
In your attempt to draw attention to the faults of women, you actually do the opposite.  In your view Adam becomes less than a man, absolved (colloquially speaking) of responsibility because women are just that powerful and a man just can't do anything to control himself when given suggestions (obviously there's some truth to this, but nowhere near as much as you're contending). 
.
I think you have some issues to sort through.

Strawman argument.

#gynecomastia

Indeed, Eve was the initial cause of the Fall, but many Catholic sources say that humanity sinned in Adam.  That's because he is the head and only in him can all of humanity be said to have been virtually contained.  Your argument actually undermines this headship of Adam.

But you're still not addressing the central question.  Had Adam not fallen, but only Eve, would their offspring, had Adam chosen to procreate with her, have contracted Original Sin?