Thank you, Dio. I can’t believe I missed this.
First off, I’d like to comment that this came too late to justify the original question to pinky, and that pinky’s responses seemed to me to be correct given that.
That said, let me list these in order:
- Voted against equal pay
- “History of shabby treatment”
- Called Hillary a lesbian
- Called Chelsea “ugly”
- Opposes reproductive rights
- Opposes issues “important to women.”
Responses:
- Cite/Context, please
- I assume you mean his affairs? Affairs are about the person having them, not the other person. I didn’t know you considered Clinton, Ted Kennedy, etc. misogynists. (ie, this is a ridiculous basis to claim misogyny).
- Cite, please.
- Well, she wasn’t an attractive girl- rather pretty now, though. Again, though, cite?
- This is your irrational “to oppose abortion is to hate women” meme. You and Der Trihs can start a club. We can call it “Baby killers for hire!” if you want to be extended as generous a consideration of your moral issues as you are handing out.
For it to be misogyny, logically, there would also need to be a drive to force women to become pregnant in the first place, the piece that the chain of logic is missing.
- This argument in itself, to me, is highly misogynistic, painting all women with the same brush and denying them any individuality or ability to behave or act as individuals. It’s also an excuse to leverage his entire platform into hating women, something that is a ridiculous and illogical spin. Frankly, Dio, you’ve often shown yourself as capable of better than that; please use the same logical standards you would apply to any purely factual question, and involves an implied character assassination by removing any other reason for opposing things like UHC, ascribing it only an “anti-” or “hate” stance. That’s a rather sad strawman.