NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/flame/19102

Text File | 1993-01-23 | 15.0 KB | 404 lines

Newsgroups: alt.flame
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!uvaarpa!murdoch!faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU!jbl3g
From: [e-mail] (Jason Basinger Linkins)
Subject: Re: Intellectuals & women
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Virginia
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:35:25 GMT
Lines: 392

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jason Basinger Linkins) writes:
>> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>>>> Your definition though, of a "wonderful" woman, however, is one that falls
>>>> exclusively into your backward, throwback scheme.
>>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>Everybody has a scheme.
>> What kind of retort is that??  Ducking the obvious?
>
>You said exclusively. I said "Everybody has a scheme". All
>the schemes are different. None is the right one. Neither
>*your* scheme. That was the retort.
I see, you don't have a retort.   Typical of you.


>> Who are you to say that it is their first purpose??  Do you honestly expect
>> all women to go along with that?  Can't you admit that this logic may
>> be right for some but not for all?
>
>It is not a matter of logic. It is a matter of proportions.
>Your idea is dangerous. If all the women decide to have not
>children anymore, humanity will die. That's the worst case
>of your idea.

Oh GOD, an extremist.  Let's think logically...shall we?  There will
always be children in this world.  Always.  Never have I espoused the
end of population.  But, of course, it's all black and white for you.
I forget you are incapable of flexing your puny mental muscle.

The worst case of my idea is that there will
>be a little bit much people, but there will still be an
>humanity.
Yes.  A humanity in which an entire gender group is OPPRESSED.

>> If you think that is the only difference, then it is clear you do not have
>> a clue.  There are societal differences, physical differences, psychological
>> differences...if you maybe read a book once in your life you would know that.
>
>Yes, that's right. But there is a problem that I wanted to
>avoid saying that it was the only difference: To adit that
>there are differences between two "class" of people, is the
>first step to have a discrimination. You know what I mean.
>If I was not serious I could use your point to flame you.

If you were not such a moron, you could flame me too.  But that's all
hypothetical, isn't it.
>You are cold and you know it.

I'm sorry, but I am not cold.  What do you want?  Character witnesses?
It is irrelevant anyway.

But that's the only way you can keep your pathetic argument alive, isn't
it?  Bringing up tangential shit to keep everything sidetracked.  You're
worse than Witty!  At least he finds new and interesting ways to flaunt
his stupidity.

>>
>> Oh, to find the REAL WORLD of michele, where women only want to have children
>> and blissful ignorance is cherished.
>
>And now you are stupid, also. I never said, in this
>discussion, that women have *only* to have children.
Lame. Lame. Lame.   You are really limping through this posting.
You have said that having children is their primary purpose.  This is what
offends me, and most women.

>> To use a Liz, this is the pot calling the kettle black.  You are not a woman
>> and yet YOU KNOW that having children is the most wonderful experience they
>> can have!  Wake up!  You contradict yourself at every turn!
>
>I did not.
YES, YES, YOU DID!

>Maybe. I like "real women".
No, you like, "Michele's idea of a real woman."  This is far removed from
what a real woman is.
NOTE:  I do not claim to know what a real woman is either, I only point
out that you are also unable to define it.


A woman that behave as a man, is
>not *for me* a real woman.
Pleae define this.  In what way do women act like men?
Can you answer this?  Can you spell?
>
>> And that is your biggest problem.  Michele, this is cold, this is heartless,
>> this is uncaring.
>
>Eh, no! A woman that decide to have no children is for
>sure *cold* in a point.
Wrong!  She just have a different agenda than you.  It does not make a person
cold.

>> I'll completely agree, that as far as I know, having children is probably
>> for many, very wonderful.  And if someone finds this to be true, then bravo!
>
>That was time that you said that, man. I was really going to
>think that you were sick.
Well, your sickness is still running rampant.

>>That is your expectation.  You have bitterly complained
>> about women who wont create new life,
>
>That's true.
>
>>and refuse to see any alternatives.
>> Thus, these are your expectations.  As for my mother, you are wrong.
>
>You are wrong, baby. You have a lack of logic.

This makes me chuckle.  This coming from you, who
couldn't hold a train of thought if you bought a railroad for it???
You are
>confusing the fact that I don't like women that do not like
>to have children, with the fact that they have *only* to
>make children. NO. They can do both, so they can have
>*double*  personal gratification. i
REALITY CHECK:  Sometimes a pregnancy has been known to interfere with other
forms of peersonal gratification.

>
>That's my real point: to let the people to work and to care
>about their children.

And if that could be done, I am all for it!  Sign me up for some o' that.
BUT, that doesn't mean a woman should feel obligated to have children


>> Exhibit A:  You claim to have respect for, but no tolerance of a woman who
>> does not have children?  How does that work?
>
>It doesn't work because you are *drunk*. I thought about that
>before to write it, and, you can notice that I said that I
>*have TOLERANCE* but I do *not have RESPECT*. Read above and
>you'll see it. You misunderstood. Such a moron.

Such a blithering fool.  I would find it hard to respect people I don't
tolerate.  It is a pretty conflicted viewpoint, though I suppose it is
possible.  Especially from someone as ridiculous as you.

>
>> Exhibit B:  Your definition, written right above states:  A woman who does
>> not have children is not a woman.  She is a stupid thing.
>
>With the middle-age definition, YES!

Middle Age?  Yes, you certainly are a throwback to the Middle Ages, that's for
sure.  If you are referring to the age of the woman, are you stupid enough to
suggest that the woman goes through some transformation?  You don't really
know what you are talking about?  You are quite the moron.

>
>> Exhibit C:  You are a blatant misogynist in your statement "I can fuck her
>> only for her body."  Must women be fucked?  Haven't they anything else to
>> offer?
>
>But, my dear boy, again with the *same* mistake?!? They have
>many things to offer. i
But, my dear misogynist...you only mention one.  FUCKING.  Yes in all this time
the only thing you have EVER suggested that a woman is good for is to be
FUCKED.  I FUCK her, Cause I'm a greasy Latin lover. That's you.
ANd if they don't like being FUCKED they get HIT.  So understanding, you.


BUT, since I don't respect such a
>woman, since with such a woman I can only discuss 12 hours
>per day, the *best* thing that she can offers to me, (or
>that I can get from her) is her body. With the other women
>the situation change.

I doubt it.
>>
>> These exhibits show an overwhelming hatred of women.  Case Closed.
>
>Pfui, it is still open. I don't hate women by definition.
Sure, as long as they play by your definition:  Get fucked, have babies,
then they can spend the remaining short period of their lives doing
whatever, while I the REAL man, get to do whatever I want.  Such a deal.
Ladies, how about signing up for that?

>>>
>Bullshit. You are drunk (ah, I demonstrated that, poor boy,
>think before to post).
What is this "drunk" shit?  How do suggest you go about proving I am
drunk?  Your flames have devolved from silly to weak ass bullshit.


>>
>> WRONG.  Allow me to quote my post again.
>>
>> " It is not.  The subjugation
>>  occurs when man like you say, "The purpose of a woman is to have children
>>  and there is nothing more important than that."
>
>Right. It is just a feeling.

I am sure that when the southerners were asked why they kept slaves, and why
they felt the negro was inferior, they said "It's just a feeling."

"Mr. Hitler, why did you kill so many jewish citizens?"

"Well, it was just this feeling I had..."

>
>> You are forcing a woman into a mold.  You are enslaving them.  That is subjugation."
>
>But LOOK! Enslaving a woman because I say that to have a
>child is the most important thing on life. FUCK YOU! YOU ARE
>COLD, SHIT! What's important on *life*?!? Can you think a
>little more deeply than the bullshit that you said up to now?!?

Yes.  I can.  And I have.  I will ask it again.  HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE
MOST IMPORTANT THING IN LIFE IS?  ARE YOU GOD?  IS THIS THE SECOND COMING?
SHOULD WE REPENT NOW, THE END IS NIGH.  Get off your pedestal, fuckwit.
YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN LIFE IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>My God, yes "intellectual". OVERFUCK YOURSELF, MAN! What do
>you think to be, IMMORTAL?!? What do you think, that your
>existence is going to change the meaning of Universe?!?

Hey, you are the one playing God, here, not me.
>
>Was your mother a slave because she had you?!?!? If your
>mother instead to make you, thought *only* about her career
>(if she had one) you would not be here. I do not know about
>yourself, but it is important for me to be *here*. Thank you
>to a woman that fucked with a man, ok?!? (do not try to
>flame now).

My mother had a nice career, but for her, having children was more important.
In her case, she was not enslaved.  Luckily, she did not have assholes like
you telling her what to do either.
>>
>>
>> YOU MISS THE POINT AGAIN!!!!  COMPLETELY!!!  YOU ARE A MARVELOUS EXAMPLE OF
>> DENSITY!!  What if you were a woman, and you grew up in a world where the
>> only thing that you were really given credit for was having children.
>  ^^^^
>
>AGAIN! FUCK, FUCK AND FUCK! You are a moron, man. I *never*
>said *only*
>
>> It would become routine.
>
>Anyway, now you proove to be an idiot, again. ROUTINE?!?!?
>To have a child is routine for you, BECAUSE AT MOST EVERYBODY DO IT?!?!?
>So, to fuck for you is routine because everybody do it,
>right? You are a moron. Absolutely. You lost here.

HA-HA!  You have MISSED again, fuckstain!  It is routine in your scheme,
because you would dictate that every woman must have children.  YOU are
FORCING them to do something THEY MAY OR MAY NOT WANT!  You would not allow
them to MAKE THEIR OWN DECISION.  What is a routine?  IT IS AN ENDLESS
PROCESS, wrought because those caught in it's cycle CANNOT MAKE THEIR OWN
DECISION.  They cannot escape.  YOU are a CREATOR of ROUTINES!

>
>> In your world, you would devalue children.
>
>Really, that's what *YOU* are doing.

WRONG YET AGAIN!!  This is a complete plunder of  your feeble attempt.
IF CHILDBIRTH became a ROUTINE, which is YOUR PLAN, it would DEVALUE
CHILDBIRTH.   ABSOLUTE IRREFUTABLE LOGIC.
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Who is God, now?!? How do you know it?!?!? You are saying
>bullshit, man. You are using your "brain"

That makes one of us.
>>You are the one who would render children worthless.
>YOU are the one that already do it on his mind.
NEVER HAS THIS ONCE BEEN "on my mind."

>
>>I'm sorry, I am an actor and I love the profession
>> dearly, but if someone forced me to do it, it would become routine and it
>> would lose all of its lustre.  This is how you would render childbirth.
>
>I was not speaking about *forcing*. i
Yes you are enslaving=forcing.  You have already stated once in this post.
"I would enslave..."


You are trying again to
>define me as a guy that think about women as baby making machine.
I don't need to define you as such.  You are doing a marvelous job.


>That's not right. My point is (if you did not understand it
>yet), that I WOULD LIKE THAT ALL THE WOMEN WOULD LIKE TO
>HAVE THEIR CHILDREN.
TO HOPEFULLY FINISH THIS THREAD OFF ONCE AND FOR ALL:

TOUGH SHIT, ASSHOLE!!!  IT AIN'T EVER GONNA HAPPEN!!!

>Ok, let me put in this way: IT IS ANYWAY A LIFE EXPERIENCE, OK?

Losing a relative can be a life experience.  Being fucked up the ass
can be a life experience.  Sniffing a daisy can be a life experience.
IT ISN"T THE SAME FOR EVERYONE.


>
>They can not know it before that they *TRY*.
Oh, you have tried bearing children?  You must have, because you sure like
to promote childbirth!  What was it like?  Did they bring it out your
ass or did you have your dick removed to accomodate it?


>
>Yes I did when I asked you what is wonderful for you.
Well, if you'd like to know, you can ask me over Email, I will not
subject alt.flame to it.


>> You seem to hate women who don't have children!
>
>I do not hate them. But, I repeat,I do not like them if they
>decided in this way.

"I don't hate them, I just don't like them!" ---michele

That makes a lot of sense.


>>
>> Who is to say what is right or natural?
>
>Well, I think that to have children is something "natural
>enough" for a woman... Don't you?
WHO AM I TO SAY?  WHO ARE YOU TO SAY?  HOW COULD EITHER OF US KNOW?
As far as natural...sure, I suppose.  But right?  WHO KNOWS?
>
>> Not you!  I have never claim to know
>> what is right or natural...but I keep an OPEN mind.  You don't seem to have one.
>
>BHAHA. "Open mind". Gimmi the definition of open mind,
>please. For example, in Italy 10 years ago, if you were not
>communist you were supposed to be not "open minded".
>Bullshit.

open mind:  One who is capable at simultaneously forming opinions and
            understanding the opinions of others.  (e.g.  I am Pro-choice.
            I understand the argumentagainst it, and simply choose not to
            agree.
)
>>
>
>Yes, I agree. Don't you think or feel that women can feel
>alot more human having a child?
They MIGHT.

 And more, is it *smart* on
>your definition of life, to try not an experience so big as
>to have a child?
NO.  If one feels that the biggest experience they could have was not child-
birth, then no, I wouldn't recommend it.

>
>I do not know it for everyone. But I strongly *belive* that
>to have a child can be something wonderful for all the women.

And I strongly believe that this is not necessarily so.

>Ok, suppose that I give you this point. Isn't it anyway a *
>wonderful* experience?
I wouldn't know, you see.  I'm a man.  I can't bear children.

>> WHO ARE YOU TO SAY THIS?  GOD?
>
>I am Satan.
Well, this clears a lot up.


>
>1> You are nationalist, and so you think that anyway only
>   the USA has the right life style.
No!!!!!!!  I in no way think this!!  I think most Americans are closed minded
sheltered, wishy-washy little twits!!

>
>2> You are not nationalist, but you do not have
>   international friends. That's sound pretty close minded to me.
Fine, if I really must cite international cities, how about Brussels,
Amsterdam, Brazil (my apartmentmate is from Rio), Sydney, Australia, etc.

Does that clear that up.
>