Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigfella
Not bravado Dale, just weariness.
You posed a question better suited to my 11 year old niece than a grown man. If I thought that was all you were capable of I would probably just have ignored it, but that fact that you can do better makes me wonder why you don't. Trolling seemed as good an explanation as any.
If this is the standard of discussion you plan to engage in then ignore me by all means, no loss.
I have posted a grownup question in response to yours. It still stands. I am still quite happy to engage in a debate on its premises.
|
Weariness, high expectations, whatever, doesn't excuse abject rudeness. But to each his own I guess.
You've taken the position that it is perfectly acceptable to gouge men a little because they've gouged others a lot. I asked then if you thought two wrongs could make a right, and while you may have been wearied by that question you certainly weren't engaged by it. Your reply implying a little bad is sometimes necessary for a greater good assumes that the little bad is, in fact, necessary.
Instead of playground insult games (which I love in other contexts, by the way), I'll simply point out that your assumption is false and your little "question for an answer" not at all clever.
Granting that men as a generic group have held power in Western society for thousands of years, and have used that power variously to inflict what today are perceived as injustices upon women (for instance), that reality can be adjusted without "unjust" repercussion. When such things are not done that way in other walks of life it is usually taken to be low behavior, if not strictly illegal.
In short, much like the economic pie can be grown for all without shrinking pieces for some, injustices toward women can be corrected without installing fresh injustices for men, and therefore should be. That is a
little different from your "we had to bomb the restaurant to try and get Saddam" answer.
-dale