# Of leashes and muzzles and women **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 1, 2004, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-leashes-and-muzzles-and-women/267000 "2004-10-01T06:52:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![TeaElle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8491ac/32.png) [@TeaElle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TeaElle)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2004, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-leashes-and-muzzles-and-women/267000/21 "2004-10-02T14:41:51Z")
> [@Equipoise](#): > > Yes yes, I know they’re jokes, and I’m not freaking out about them. But geez, you’d think these Republican men would be a little bit more, well, sensitive, after the Abu Ghraib photos of prisoners on leashes. They’re not Spinal Tap. Yes, because you know, everybody – but especially those evil white oppressor Republican men – should change their everyday use of idiomatic speech because of Lynddie England. :rolleyes: Nothing cracks me up harder on a Saturday morning than liberals complaining about piddly crap like this after the extraordinarily personal and hurtful commentary that’s been made toward Mary Cheney once it was determined that she was “part of the campaign” and therefore “fair game.” Sauce for the goose, y’all. Sauce for the goose. ---
**Author:** ![Equipoise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/equipoise/32/151_2.png) [@Equipoise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Equipoise)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2004, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-leashes-and-muzzles-and-women/267000/22 "2004-10-02T19:58:47Z")
> [@TeaElle](#): > > Yes, because you know, everybody – but especially those evil white oppressor Republican men – should change their everyday use of idiomatic speech because of Lynddie England. :rolleyes: > > Nothing cracks me up harder on a Saturday morning than liberals complaining about piddly crap like this after the extraordinarily personal and hurtful commentary that’s been made toward Mary Cheney once it was determined that she was “part of the campaign” and therefore “fair game.” Sauce for the goose, y’all. Sauce for the goose. Um, what? It was a REPUBLICAN (Alan “whack-job” Keyes) who started talking shit about her. Anyway, you’re certainly right about the piddly crap. Here are some things that are much more important. > **[Thousand Reasons Magazín](https://www.thousandreasons.org/)** > > Produkty & Služby [http://www.bushlies.net/pages/1/index.htm](http://www.bushlies.net/pages/1/index.htm) [http://www.bushlies.net/pages/9/index.htm](http://www.bushlies.net/pages/9/index.htm) [http://www.bushlies.net/pages/6/index.htm](http://www.bushlies.net/pages/6/index.htm) [http://www.bushlies.net/pages/7/index.htm](http://www.bushlies.net/pages/7/index.htm) > **[Cost of National Security](https://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/?redirect=cow)** > > What counts as national security depends on your perspective. These embeddable counters track how much the U.S. spends on a variety of programs that protect our future, from military to food assistance. Do our nation's spending choices align with... [http://icasualties.org/oif/](http://icasualties.org/oif/) [http://www.pigstye.net/iraq/](http://www.pigstye.net/iraq/) [http://www.iraqbodycount.net/](http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) > **[Antiwar.com](http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/)** [http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0305/rrichards.html](http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0305/rrichards.html) > **[Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse)** > > During the early stages of the Iraq War, members of the United States Army and the CIA committed a series of human rights violations and war crimes against detainees in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, including physical and sexual abuse, torture, rape, sodomy, and the killing of Manadel al-Jamadi. The abuses came to public attention with the publication of photographs of the abuse by CBS News in April 2004. The incidents caused shock and outrage, receiving widespread condemnation withi The Geor... [http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/list.php](http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/list.php) [http://realvoices.org/rv/index.html](http://realvoices.org/rv/index.html) That’s a tiny handful out of several hundred links. I could go on…? ---
**Author:** ![milroyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@milroyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/milroyj)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2004, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-leashes-and-muzzles-and-women/267000/23 "2004-10-02T20:08:46Z")
> [@Equipoise](#): > > That’s a tiny handful out of several hundred links. I could go on…? And nary a one of your “links” is to a legitimate, unbiased, news source. You are retarded, aren’t you? ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2004, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-leashes-and-muzzles-and-women/267000/24 "2004-10-02T20:31:03Z")
Is it just me, or are some of the Rabid Right (the SDMB version of Loony Leftists-not ALL conservatives/right wingers here are “rabid”), begun a trend of calling anyone they disagree with “retarded” lately? First **Brutus** , now **milroyj**. What is this, fourth grade? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2004, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-leashes-and-muzzles-and-women/267000/25 "2004-10-02T20:35:17Z")
> [@TVeblen](#): > > It’s the Good Ol’ Boys Campaign Sound Byte contest. > > Nyuck, nycuk, nyuck.\<–queasy send-up, with eyes riveted on polls > > At least us wimmin types are finally an official demographic. Too bad we aren’t neatly packable by potential votes, almost like (gasp!) default human types! We very annoyingly blend all over the political landscape. > It’s enough to make simple jokes so nerve wracking. > We’re pissy that way. Ahhh…women! Can’t live with them, zero population growth without them! I almost want Kerry to get into office just for the pure entertainment value of seeing what will come out of THK’s mouth on a day to day basis. I think Martha Mitchell will look like a wallflower by comparison. ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2004, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-leashes-and-muzzles-and-women/267000/26 "2004-10-02T20:36:49Z")
> [@milroyj](#): > > And nary a one of your “links” is to a legitimate, unbiased, news source. You are retarded, aren’t you? You, of all people, should hardly be whining about the quality of sources, eh? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![milroyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@milroyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/milroyj)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2004, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-leashes-and-muzzles-and-women/267000/27 "2004-10-02T20:38:29Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Is it just me, or are some of the Rabid Right (the SDMB version of Loony Leftists-not ALL conservatives/right wingers here are “rabid”), begun a trend of calling anyone they disagree with “retarded” lately? > > First **Brutus** , now **milroyj**. What is this, fourth grade? > > :rolleyes: I’m just responding in kind. In another thread, **Equipoise** twice referred to “pansy-assed Republicans”, which either makes her a homophobe, a fourth-grader (Someone/thing I don’t like = gay :rolleyes: ), or both. ---
**Author:** ![milroyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@milroyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/milroyj)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2004, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-leashes-and-muzzles-and-women/267000/28 "2004-10-02T20:40:41Z")
> [@iampunha](#): > > You, of all people, should hardly be whining about the quality of sources, eh? :dubious: Excuse me? Where and when have I ever posted dubious sources, for anything? ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2004, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-leashes-and-muzzles-and-women/267000/29 "2004-10-02T20:56:05Z")
> [@milroyj](#): > > Excuse me? Where and when have I ever posted dubious sources, for anything? I was referring not to your own lack of posting reputable sources but to the hissyfit temper tantrum you threw [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=274735). Meanwhile, a stronger case against the validity of the websites posted by **Equipoise** might attempt to refute the information posted there rather than summarily dismissing them out of hand. ---
**Author:** ![TeaElle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8491ac/32.png) [@TeaElle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TeaElle)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2004, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-leashes-and-muzzles-and-women/267000/30 "2004-10-02T21:46:33Z")
> [@iampunha](#): > > Meanwhile, a stronger case against the validity of the websites posted by **Equipoise** might attempt to refute the information posted there rather than summarily dismissing them out of hand. Will you hold to that standard the next time someone posts a link to a story at WorldNetDaily? ---
**Author:** ![milroyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@milroyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/milroyj)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2004, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-leashes-and-muzzles-and-women/267000/31 "2004-10-02T21:50:43Z")
> [@iampunha](#): > > Meanwhile, a stronger case against the validity of the websites posted by **Equipoise** might attempt to refute the information posted there rather than summarily dismissing them out of hand. That’s b.s. and you know it. Why should anyone waste their breath refuting such things as found on [bushlies.net](http://bushlies.net)? A summary dismissal is the best thing it deserves. ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2004, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-leashes-and-muzzles-and-women/267000/32 "2004-10-02T22:16:32Z")
> [@TeaElle](#): > > Will you hold to that standard the next time someone posts a link to a story at WorldNetDaily? I’m not holding anyone to any standard, but thanks for trying to put words in my mouth. I would clarify what I said, but my guess is you’d just try to paint me as enforcing something. **milroyj** is free to attempt to invalidate sources with one sentences as he likes; it harms me none. I just figure if he’s going to bother posting disagreeing with them he might as well take that extra five minutes and come up with something of substance, since wikipedia, for example, is not exactly the partisan world of things that [bushlies.net](http://bushlies.net) is. ---
**Author:** ![milroyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@milroyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/milroyj)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2004, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-leashes-and-muzzles-and-women/267000/33 "2004-10-02T22:25:34Z")
> [@iampunha](#): > > I’m not holding anyone to any standard, but thanks for trying to put words in my mouth. I would clarify what I said, but my guess is you’d just try to paint me as enforcing something. **milroyj** is free to attempt to invalidate sources with one sentences as he likes; it harms me none. I just figure if he’s going to bother posting disagreeing with them he might as well take that extra five minutes and come up with something of substance, since wikipedia, for example, is not exactly the partisan world of things that [bushlies.net](http://bushlies.net) is. Like I said, I’m not going to bother to invalidate any trash that someone puts out. Out of 14 links, one was to wikpedia, but the rest were to [bushlies.net](http://bushlies.net), [antiwar.com](http://antiwar.com), [iraqbodycount.net](http://iraqbodycount.net) and other rot. ---
**Author:** ![TeaElle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8491ac/32.png) [@TeaElle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TeaElle)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2004, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-leashes-and-muzzles-and-women/267000/34 "2004-10-02T22:37:23Z")
> [@iampunha](#): > > I’m not holding anyone to any standard, but thanks for trying to put words in my mouth. I wasn’t putting words in your mouth, I was asking a question. I’m sorry if it came across as snarky. Since I’ve seen two different threads where WND was slagged on today (without anyone even linking to them) I thought it appropos to ask, since you seemed to be suggesting that content trumps source. ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2004, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-leashes-and-muzzles-and-women/267000/35 "2004-10-02T22:45:25Z")
> [@TeaElle](#): > > I wasn’t putting words in your mouth, I was asking a question. I’m sorry if it came across as snarky. Since I’ve seen two different threads where WND was slagged on today (without anyone even linking to them) I thought it appropos to ask, since you seemed to be suggesting that content trumps source. What I’m suggesting (no worries on snarkiness - getting close to the election, etc. I was as guilty as you were.) is that when one posts several sources, it more behooves the disputing party to point out an error or two, or a case of obvious partisanship, than it does for same party to just say “those aren’t valid sources.” I’ve seen “nice try, but that cite is biased” many many many times in my time here, and when the disputing party is given a long list of cites, **however questionable I might find them** , I think at least addressing _some_ of the content is better than just idly brushing it aside. This is, of course, subject to a bit of common sense. Had all 18 sources been to either [bushlies.net](http://bushlies.net), [bushblowsgoats.org](http://bushblowsgoats.org), [bushisanazi.com](http://bushisanazi.com) or [illegalwars.net](http://illegalwars.net), I would have spoken differently:) **milroyj** , since you have so astutely observed (in agreeing with me) that one of the cites was to a place not obviously partisan, perhaps you’d care to share what at the wikipedia site you found objectionable - since, of course, rather than reading down the list and tossing them out before reading them, as only the truly blindly partisan would do, you actually read a sampling of each. ---
**Author:** ![TeaElle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8491ac/32.png) [@TeaElle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TeaElle)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2004, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-leashes-and-muzzles-and-women/267000/36 "2004-10-02T22:55:44Z")
> [@iampunha](#): > > What I’m suggesting (no worries on snarkiness - getting close to the election, etc. I was as guilty as you were.) is that when one posts several sources, it more behooves the disputing party to point out an error or two, or a case of obvious partisanship, than it does for same party to just say “those aren’t valid sources.” I’ve seen “nice try, but that cite is biased” many many many times in my time here, and when the disputing party is given a long list of cites, **however questionable I might find them** , I think at least addressing _some_ of the content is better than just idly brushing it aside. Agreed. I must say, of all Dopers, you’re one of the absolute last I’d want to be in a snit with, iampunha! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2004, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-leashes-and-muzzles-and-women/267000/37 "2004-10-02T22:58:54Z")
> [@TeaElle](#): > > Agreed. I must say, of all Dopers, you’re one of the absolute last I’d want to be in a snit with, iampunha! 🙂 Ah, but that’s because I’d just run nekkid through you;) [sub]Someone better start arguing again, cuz this is turning decidedly toward MPSIMS material…[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![milroyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@milroyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/milroyj)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2004, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-leashes-and-muzzles-and-women/267000/38 "2004-10-02T22:59:31Z")
> [@iampunha](#): > > **milroyj** , since you have so astutely observed (in agreeing with me) that one of the cites was to a place not obviously partisan, perhaps you’d care to share what at the wikipedia site you found objectionable - since, of course, rather than reading down the list and tossing them out before reading them, as only the truly blindly partisan would do, you actually read a sampling of each. Why bother? No really, would you read a link to [JeanFrancoisKerrylies.com](http://JeanFrancoisKerrylies.com)? What’s the point? It’s blathering nonsense, whichever side it comes from, and it must be dismissed summarily. But posters like **Equipoise** act like it’s the gospel truth. That’s what I don’t understand. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2004, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-leashes-and-muzzles-and-women/267000/39 "2004-10-02T23:00:03Z")
> [@TVeblen](#): > > Too bad we aren’t neatly packable by potential votes, almost like (gasp!) default human types! [Peter Griffin]Women are not people, they are devices made by the Lord Jesus Christ for our entertainment…[/PG] ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2004, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-leashes-and-muzzles-and-women/267000/40 "2004-10-02T23:17:06Z")
> [@milroyj](#): > > Why bother? No really, would you read a link to [JeanFrancoisKerrylies.com](http://JeanFrancoisKerrylies.com)? What’s the point? It’s blathering nonsense, whichever side it comes from, and it must be dismissed summarily. But posters like **Equipoise** act like it’s the gospel truth. That’s what I don’t understand. I get email updates from the AFA. I recognize the vast bulk of the words in them as being deliberately (and often dishonestly) slanted toward a particular goal I have not supported in several years, if I ever did. Their conclusions are often (IMHO, anyway:)) suspect if not off and their manner of argument usually leaves something to be desired. I read every update I get. Know why? I’ll tell you. It’s because it’s good to know what the other side is up to. It’s good to know what arguments they’re using, where they’re getting their information, what they know and what they don’t know. So if something is a non-trivial source of information for a group of people, I’d say it’s worth a look regardless of how much drivel you think it amounts to. I’ll read (assuming I had time - sometimes I’ll read a thread in the minute before I leave to go to class or a meeting, and I can’t spare five minutes to get a good look at something) at least the first link to [JohnKerryisaFrenchFuckface.com](http://JohnKerryisaFrenchFuckface.com), especially if I see multiple people honestly citing it. (And if I don’t, feel free to call me on it.) That way, instead of dismissing it as partisan BS, I know A) the arguments being used, B) where I think they fall short and C) what others see as being facts that might not be the case from where I stand. That lends itself much more to coming at least to agree to disagree, rather than just trading partisan potshots, and at least the first can often be said to be fighting ignorance. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-leashes-and-muzzles-and-women/267000.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-leashes-and-muzzles-and-women/267000.md?page=3)