That was my post rolling over your post. Bump bump.
Cannonpointer » 24 Sep 2024, 6:28 pm » wrote: ↑ That was my post rolling over your post. Bump bump.
If the rule you followed brought you to a world where the women you love have lost their rights, of what good was the rule?
Then you love no women, as all have lost the right to a dick free shower and sex-segregated sports.
There were strong and successful jews in hitler's germany.
You talked about the women I love. I answered. Are you now the champion of every woman? How about the women who get gunned down by school shooters? Are you gonna champion them? Are you gonna champion the poor black mother who needs WIC to feed her kids? GMAFB.Cannonpointer » 24 Sep 2024, 6:39 pm » wrote: ↑ Then you love no women, as all have lost the right to a dick free shower and sex-segregated sports.
There were strong and successful jews in hitler's germany.
Is it your contention that those jews lost no rights?
There were wealthy blacks under jim crow. Is it your contention they were deprived of no rights?
There are strong and successful people in China, Saudi Arabia. West Virginia. Does that mean they have the same rights as Americans?
Always. I am a man. It is in my DNA to be protective of all women.maineman » 24 Sep 2024, 6:43 pm » wrote: ↑ You talked about the women I love. I answered. Are you now the champion of every woman?
It is disingenuous of you to pretend being anti-2nd Amendment is being a supporter of women's rights. I've seen niggling squigglers and squiggling nigglers, but this takes the cake.maineman » 24 Sep 2024, 6:43 pm » wrote: ↑How about the women who get gunned down by school shooters?
Yes.
Yes - but AGAIN, that is not a women's rights issue.maineman » 24 Sep 2024, 6:43 pm » wrote: ↑Are you gonna champion the poor black mother who needs WIC to feed her kids? GMAFB.
They HAD a right to a dick free public shower and dick free sports.
Cannonpointer » 24 Sep 2024, 6:51 pm » wrote: ↑ Always. I am a man. It is in my DNA to be protective of all women.
It is disingenuous of you to pretend being anti-2nd Amendment is being a supporter of women's rights. I've seen niggling squigglers and squiggling nigglers, but this takes the cake.
If I were in a situation where an active shooter was gunning my neighbors - male or female - it is my belief that I would charge him and hope for the best. I base that belief on my well-established internet courage.
Yes.
Yes - but AGAIN, that is not a women's rights issue.
I find it amusing to watch a leftist go from pretending that only babies dying is a women's rights issue to EVERYTHING (except cock-free sports and showers) is a women's issue. GMAFB.
So were lynchings, misogynist.maineman » 24 Sep 2024, 6:57 pm » wrote: ↑ and I laugh at folks who would have anyone believe that cock-fre sports and showers are anything other than an extremely rare anomaly.
I would love to see you data that supports that....Cannonpointer » 24 Sep 2024, 7:03 pm » wrote: ↑ So were lynchings, misogynist.
So THOSE rights violations don't matter either - right?
There are more women and girls affected by men violating women's spaces and sports than there are affected by school shooters, fruitcake.
Is that the new measure, fruit rollup?
You've been shown the data. You didn't care.
Cannonpointer » 24 Sep 2024, 7:28 pm » wrote: ↑ You've been shown the data. You didn't care.
I showed you where a mere TWO female impersonators in womanface affected hundreds of girls and women, from records set to going to state matches to getting scholarships.
Your wheezy insistence that violating only a FEW women's rights - which is a lie, but even GRANTING the dishonest premise - doesn't constitute a women's rights issue is a slippery slope - just the way you like it. Slippery.
Your wife and daughter HAD a right to a dick free shower at their gym. Now they don't.
Explain to us how they didn't lose any rights.
You restated your thesis and ducked the question.maineman » 24 Sep 2024, 7:45 pm » wrote: ↑ neither my wife nor my daughter nor my daughters-in-law have ever had their rights lost.
I'll be sure to let you know when they ever do.
IF THEY HAD A RIGHT TO SHOWER WITHOUT ONE-LEGGED TERYDACTLYLS SHOWERING WITH THEM AND NOW THEY DON'T?Cannonpointer » 24 Sep 2024, 7:52 pm » wrote: ↑ You restated your thesis and ducked the question.
I will ask again: If they HAD a right to a dick free shower, and now they don't, explain to the board how the right they lost was not lost.
https://j.gifs.com/v1ZzDG.gif
Then they LOST THAT RIGHT, you stupid old woman.maineman » 24 Sep 2024, 7:57 pm » wrote: ↑ IF THEY HAD A RIGHT TO SHOWER WITHOUT ONE-LEGGED TERYDACTLYLS SHOWERING WITH THEM AND NOW THEY DON'T?
So you are completely changing your position, then - without exhibiting the dignity to say so.maineman » 24 Sep 2024, 7:57 pm » wrote: ↑ I DOUBT ANY OF THE WOMEN IN MY LIFE PAUSE TO GIVE A FLYING **** ABOUT THEM.
Or this?maineman » 24 Sep 2024, 7:45 pm » wrote: ↑ neither my wife nor my daughter nor my daughters-in-law have ever had their rights lost.
I'll be sure to let you know when they ever do.
Did they keep the right to a dick-free shower and sports, or did they lose it and just not CARE that they lost it?maineman » 24 Sep 2024, 7:57 pm » wrote: ↑ I DOUBT ANY OF THE WOMEN IN MY LIFE PAUSE TO GIVE A FLYING **** ABOUT THEM.
female is a female conceived to dead. the stages she has works in series parallel time with male reproductions living spontaneously alive simultaneously existing since day conceived to replace the ancestry occupying time in this atmosphere so far.maineman » 24 Sep 2024, 6:31 pm » wrote: ↑ no women I love have lost any rights.
they are all strong successful women.