Chilloutman

Who cares what the US and a literal bunch of its colonies think either? Threats and intimidation and 9, nine, votes for. 5% support: how embarrassing. It will be even more hilarious if Trump tries to carry out his threats as that will play straight into China and Russia's hands and hasten the decline of international US influence even more. What's he going to do, cut Saudi Arabia off? South Korea? Rule 1 is don't make threats you can't or won't be able to go through with as whatever happens you end up looking weak or stupid, or have to do something monumentally dumb to not look weak. Much like Obama's Syria red line you end up with only bad choices, and Trump's judgement is so lacking that he might make the monumentally dumb choice instead. Well, a second stupid choice, since he made the Jerusalem one first, a decision even GWB baulked at making. Trump admin is the Seymour Skinner of international affairs: Am I out of touch? No, it's everyone else who is wrong! Dont forget about those 40 who abstained...

I was thinking for a while if you really mean it. Sorry

Do you see Czechs demanding Fins do give up their wealth in favor of them or what?

LOL https://www.britannica.com/event/Munich-Agreement THANK YOU UK!!!

thats where I am heading but I wanted to play with them for a while first, you ruined my fun "Today these laws still have impact on women statuses in societies as general as they have made our societies such that we have much more rich men than women." I am so proud of you two's ability to read what is written and how you don't let your preconception impact on how you interpret things. Good job That is issue with history - it have impact on current events, have fun fighting with windmills I started this conversation over this point "Yeah it is outrageous statement, almost like patriarchy is holding women back right? :)" By saying Patriarchy is holding women in back, but not necessary ways that people think when they hear the claim and giving example why I think so So who here is fighting windmills? Sorry I must seems dumb but is that example in that quote somewhere? Or was it that some decades ago women were disadvantaged?

thats where I am heading but I wanted to play with them for a while first, you ruined my fun "Today these laws still have impact on women statuses in societies as general as they have made our societies such that we have much more rich men than women." I am so proud of you two's ability to read what is written and how you don't let your preconception impact on how you interpret things. Good job That is issue with history - it have impact on current events, have fun fighting with windmills

I was talking about 'third wave feminism' you know the one that didn't achieve its goals yet as opposed to second wave which I am completely fine with. That last one which contradict itself on every turn

Yes, if you say so it must be true

so ducks have some authoritarian ideology? Thats new to me, please enlighten me

No. Isn't that why feminism exists? To continue to drive equality? Well either you accept that changes in society takes time or you implement laws which would be antithesis of equality (at least in original liberal sense - eg. equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome)

do nazis hold power over you? do hippies hold power over you? do religious oligarchists hold power over you? do ducks hold power over you? not sure where you are heading with this

do nazis hold power over you? That's a bit of a false equivalence, because we've already seen what happens when nazis get power, while we only have your vague supposition that feminists are totally bad and authoritarian to go by. "It's an authoritarian idea because I envision they'll take away my freedom of speech and probably kill all men if they ever get into power" is not exactly the most shining proof of feminist authoritarianism. well i can probably find some examples where we actually can see effects of authoritarian feminism in practice but its not that important. We know how authoritarian *insert whatever you don't like* end.

thats where I am heading but I wanted to play with them for a while first, you ruined my fun

There's nothing "tough" or "advanced" about rank idiocy such as "women are destroying civilization". Yeah it is outrageous statement, almost like patriarchy is holding women back right? Patriarchy is holding women in back, but not necessary ways that people think when they hear the claim Like for example it isn't even half century ago when in many (western) countries women could not actually own credit card, bank account etc. things without man co-signing those. It also wasn't that long ago when in many (western) countries inheritance laws jump over women in favor of male relatives (and some times male cousin could be higher in line than actual daughter of deceased). It isn't also that long when we had laws in many (western) countries that moved ownership of things that woman owned to her husband if she married. Today these laws still have impact on women statuses in societies as general as they have made our societies such that we have much more rich men than women. Look I am not arguing about how things were. Neither am I so how: Today these laws still have impact on women statuses in societies as general as they have made our societies such that we have much more rich men than women. If they are no longer in place? (expecting some mental gymnastics) Because of those laws of the past there are less of female versions of Trump and Koch brothers who use their inherited wealth to lobby laws and become political leaders. So you think that there is no raise of wealth hold by women compared to 50 years ago?

There's nothing "tough" or "advanced" about rank idiocy such as "women are destroying civilization". Yeah it is outrageous statement, almost like patriarchy is holding women back right? Patriarchy is holding women in back, but not necessary ways that people think when they hear the claim Like for example it isn't even half century ago when in many (western) countries women could not actually own credit card, bank account etc. things without man co-signing those. It also wasn't that long ago when in many (western) countries inheritance laws jump over women in favor of male relatives (and some times male cousin could be higher in line than actual daughter of deceased). It isn't also that long when we had laws in many (western) countries that moved ownership of things that woman owned to her husband if she married. Today these laws still have impact on women statuses in societies as general as they have made our societies such that we have much more rich men than women. Look I am not arguing about how things were. Neither am I so how: Today these laws still have impact on women statuses in societies as general as they have made our societies such that we have much more rich men than women. If they are no longer in place? (expecting some mental gymnastics)

There's nothing "tough" or "advanced" about rank idiocy such as "women are destroying civilization". Yeah it is outrageous statement, almost like patriarchy is holding women back right? Patriarchy is holding women in back, but not necessary ways that people think when they hear the claim Like for example it isn't even half century ago when in many (western) countries women could not actually own credit card, bank account etc. things without man co-signing those. It also wasn't that long ago when in many (western) countries inheritance laws jump over women in favor of male relatives (and some times male cousin could be higher in line than actual daughter of deceased). It isn't also that long when we had laws in many (western) countries that moved ownership of things that woman owned to her husband if she married. Today these laws still have impact on women statuses in societies as general as they have made our societies such that we have much more rich men than women. Look I am not arguing about how things were.

They already have to enter marriage voluntarily and divorce at will. At least where most of us lives. No need for feminism there, get better example

do nazis hold power over you?

Extremely indeed After all, feminists would like less sexualized characters in video games, while the kind of people BPS is pandering to believe in "white sharia" (their words, not mine), and those two are clearly the same thing extreme authoritarian does not mean that goals are extreme, but the fact that they hold power (or want to) over you no matter if you agree with goal or not.

There's nothing "tough" or "advanced" about rank idiocy such as "women are destroying civilization". Yeah it is outrageous statement, almost like patriarchy is holding women back right? Yes, crypto-fascist talking points clearly have the same merit as feminist ideas I know you mean it as sarcasm but it holds some merit, both are extremely authoritarian

There's nothing "tough" or "advanced" about rank idiocy such as "women are destroying civilization". Yeah it is outrageous statement, almost like patriarchy is holding women back right?

I always like SW as space fairy tale and I never took it as 'serious' movie. Maybe thats why only liked it as a kid