Originally Posted by Boredpayne

Without scientists it sure wouldn't, but you didn't make that analogy to actually examine the argument, just step past it.

What...? Without scientists to properly identify it, you're saying it wouldn't exist? Troll.

And why were they seceding?
You can get as literal and pedantic as you want, at the end of the day you are/were peddling falsehoods that are an embarrassment to your credibility in future discussions.

I can't tell if you're trolling or just quoting certain parts of what I said and leaving the other crap out. Let me fix that for you and add the whole part about what the civil war was about: The war wasn't about slavery, it was about preventing the south from seceding. The reason for their secession was because of the majority and their abolitionist views, yes, but the war was not to force them to end slavery. It was to force them to stick with the union. I stated exactly that in my previous post.

The movement for the abolition and civil war coincide in history, the civil war did not happen because of slavery, the secession was caused by the major abolition movement, and the civil war happened because of the secession.

So you're saying the damage feminism has done outweighs the pros of women's suffrage?

"Outweighs the pros" vs. "Is no longer needed as it has accomplished its objective." How are you so horribly misinterpreting what i'm saying?

Rights are not the entirety of equality.

No shit, but, you can't force bigots to change their attitudes regardless of what you do. The more you piss people off, the less likely they are to agree with your message.

Lmfao blatant bias in divorce cases.

Do you need examples?

http://www.lawyernewportri.com/2013/...divorce-cases/
http://www.illinoisdivorceatty.com/2...divorce-cases/
http://www.fathermag.com/808/GenderBias.shtml
http://www.wisconsinfathers.org/genderbias.htm

If you need more, I can give you more examples.

Originally Posted by Boredpayne

Here is what he said:


Strange, these two statements look rather dissimilar. In fact you could say they're, well, different.

actually, you're incorrect. Gorman has it right.

"Feminism is no longer needed"
ImmortalPig, I'd like you to meet my friend, Graph: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...sex_-_2006.png

Graph quite frankly has a very poor opinion of your conclusion. In fact, Graph is very upset that you would suggest that men and women are fully equal in society. Graph is going to need a minute. Look what you've done. You've hurt Graph.

No one said men and women are fully equal. Men and women do not have the same capacity for work on account of natural selection. History has deemed hard working men and motherly women to be fit to reproduce, hence why this disparity exists. Physical and emotional differences are enough to warrant this inequality, and pretending it doesn't exist is as bad as over-exaggerating its effects. You are arguing for the ideology of feminism, I am arguing against the reality of all of these ridiculous organizations.

Originally Posted by Boredpayne

Because that's the one I wanted to talk about, and we were in the process of discussing? Really piglet, try and keep up.

Originally Posted by Boredpayne

Hyde argues that advocacy groups harm more than help. I am raising the clearly minor point of women's right to vote as a counter argument, mostly in incredulity.
I'd ask you if you had any other ideas to fix the inequalities between sexes, but your suggestion appears to be "do nothing, because it would be counter-sexism!!"

Originally Posted by Boredpayne

In fact, ImmortalPig, I'm going to have to ask you to take up the issues my friend Graph still has with you.