Perhaps, but what we do know with certainty is that if my grandmother had wheels, she’d be a bus.
Seriously, dude. Weak argument.
:rolleyes: No, it means that they have less power and need protection from amoral predatory scum like yourself. They need protection from people like you, who would cheerfully torture all of them to death for pocket change and feel self righteously superior about it.
Oh please.
The above comment is as much comment as this post warrants. Honestly.
He’s a Randian. A let-the-weak-die, anything-is-justified-if-it’s-profitable Randian. Sociopathy as a life philosophy.
I have about as much love for Ayn Rand’s philosophies as you do, but the over-the-top hyperbole about them “cheerfully torturing people to death” is ludicrous.
When you say “they have less power,” you think you are making a factual statement about the real world, but you aren’t. You are only providing your justification for treating women, blacks, and poor people like your pets instead of like full humans in their own right.
Also, with all the threads about Randianism and libertarianusm you’ve participated in over the years, one would think you would have actually learned something about the content of the philosophies you despise so much. But, alas, you haven’t. You just constantly pillory a junior high marxist’s view of what they are all about. So, I feel no need to respond to these little tirades from you because you aren’t describing any philosophy that I (or anyone else) actually ascribes to.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that if a rich white male doper wrote a post describing his biblical marriage to another rich white male doper, there could be a lot of eye batting going on.
You really need a new shtick, dude. The “liberal Ann Coulter, with bigger tits” thing is threadbare.
You clearly haven’t met very many blacks.
But everyone on earth is raised in a cultural setting that influences them later in life. Does that mean free choice is itself a “questionable at best” concept? If so, is tyhe implication that collectively, as a society, “we” ought to substitute our choice (more objectively rational) for theirs in intimate matters?
Or is the better, less paternalistic approach to assume, barring actual evidence to the contrary, that adults are responsible for their own choices regardless of upbringing?
The funny thing about this is that while Rand Rover suggests it’s quite possible to assemble a profile of the “typical liberal doper” from their selected aggregate posts, you will find that Rand Rover will utterly object to any such profile offered from someone’s select aggregate reading of Rand Rover’s posts.
Typical libertarian. 
Honest question: why should we? I think you or I or Dio is free to assume, based on whatever evidence we deem valid, the vagueries of another person’s relationship. If I see a women being abused but goes back to her husband each time, I’m going to assume she has mental problems. Dio’s doing the same based on Brazil84’s description of his relationship with women. I think what you may be trying to say is that we should take people at their word by not interfering as if we were certain (for example if Dio tries to break up Brazil84’s marriage, that would be wrong based on what little info he has), but that doesn’t hold true if we just want to throw snarky comments at him. I think Dio’s assessment of Brazil84’s mental state is spot on based on what knowledge I have. I have no need to take them at their word and if Brazil’s wife was here too, I’d tell her she was being abused and a victim, but I wouldn’t go out of my way to break them up
Hey quit talking to yourself! …Oh wait…
He said nothing of the sort. He and his wife came to an agreement which he violated, albeit on accident, and he felt bad about. They were 2 adults that consensually followed a policy they both agreed to and he made a mistake. That’s why he was upset. The other stuff is irrelevent
Why the fuck has this thread become all about Dio?
It’s supposed to be about the asshattery of Brazil84, and frankly I’d like to see him called out for his blatantly misogynistic statements. I can’t remember anything but crazy coming out of his mouth since the first day I saw him post here.
So I’m bored. Therefore, I’m going to waste some time.
This doesn’t make Brazil sexist, gynophobic, misogynistic or whatever other adjective you want to use. It strikes me as odd that you would criticize someone for stating that it’s his responsibility to lead a family. I’d be willing to say that-- outside of this board, which seems to be somewhat of an anomaly-- most people would wholeheartedly agree with the statement that a man is responsible for leading the family/being the head of his household. Sure, you could think that archaic or whatever, but I’m not seeing how such a statement makes Brazil anything you said he is.
You’re disputing this? I’m… going to go out on a rather short limb here and say that most women would probably appreciate, and want, a man who goes out, works, pays the bills and pretty much takes care of his family. I don’t see how such a statement can possibly be seen negatively.
Women will typically tell you this. What’s the problem with what he said? Being the ripe old age of 26 (:D), I’m rather exposed to having to listen to chicks complain about how they want a “nice guy” while they continue to date the biggest assholes on the planet.
That’s how his marriage is (or how he wants it). What’s the problem? If a woman were to say “I want to be married to a man who makes all the decisions!”, would that be equally as bad or worthy of scorn or disdain?
You might not like it, but that’s the way he wants his relationships to be and there are plenty of women out there who want there relationships to be the same way. And, no, said women aren’t brainwashed or anything of the sort. What’s the problem with what he said aside from you not liking it?
Again I ask, what’s the problem with this statement? He didn’t say all women were stupid or anything of the sort, but rather that it’s his preference to be the boss in a relationship, even if the woman’s judgment is better than his.
Simple experience gives credence to this assertion. Few women want a guy who’s not really assertive, not all that decisive and doesn’t like to take charge of his situation. Generally, those are the kind of guys chicks rolls their eyes towards.
It seems to me you’re making a mountain out of a molehill and have proceeded to attack someone solely because you don’t agree with their views.
You’re a fucking moron.
My first inclination was to type “It takes one to know one!”, but that would have been juvenile. Therefore, I’ll defer to my second inclination and w… Wait, a minute. I already said this.
Care to elaborate?
Your defense of the “women want to be led” remark is exhibit one, but your entire posting history backs it up too. Even your user name is stupid.
That seems more of a cop-out than anything, but you’re free to do as you will. But, for argument’s sake, let’s just assume that my response to that was just so totally wrong, what about my other responses?
…And trying to take a potshot at my username? Tsk, tsk, tsk.
It seems that someone on the dope has to say this every so often and today I guess it’s my turn.
There is no one thing all women want. Women, amazingly enough, are people and, like other people, they are not all the same.
I guess I should have told everyone to sit down first. Put your head between your knees and breathe slowly. This shock will pass.
This thread is awash in whatever internet tough guys have instead of testosterone.