More unfairness for males

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

More unfairness for males

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 12 of 21 < 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 >

johnno42000 11 Oct 17 12.36pm
[Link] The bloke is right. She should be jailed. 'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more'
Alert a moderator to this post

johnno42000

11 Oct 17 12.36pm

[Link]

The bloke is right. She should be jailed.

'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more'

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 11 Oct 17 1.17pm
Originally posted by johnno42000 [Link] The bloke is right. She should be jailed. Whilst I do entirely agree with him, statistically speaking, if it'd had been a woman, it probably wouldn't have made it to court, let alone ended in a prosecution. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 11 Oct 17 1.17pm

Originally posted by johnno42000

[Link]

The bloke is right. She should be jailed.

Whilst I do entirely agree with him, statistically speaking, if it'd had been a woman, it probably wouldn't have made it to court, let alone ended in a prosecution.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 11 Oct 17 1.26pm
Originally posted by johnno42000 [Link] The bloke is right. She should be jailed. Our jails are so over-crowded that it's surprising what you have to do just to get in one nowadays. The incident you link to is just another example of unfairness inherent between the sexes. I'm not saying that men and women should be treated exactly the same in all instances.....because I myself don't believe in equality but fairness. However, I think those that care for objectivity should point out the huge points of hypocrisy within society where feminists ask for equality.....but only for equality within the areas that will benefit them. They don't want the nasty bits......and no one wants to highlight it because they get called sexist. In fact the people who probably highlight it most effectively are those women who point out these issues....like karen straughan. [Link] 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

11 Oct 17 1.26pm

Originally posted by johnno42000

[Link]

The bloke is right. She should be jailed.

Our jails are so over-crowded that it's surprising what you have to do just to get in one nowadays.

The incident you link to is just another example of unfairness inherent between the sexes.

I'm not saying that men and women should be treated exactly the same in all instances.....because I myself don't believe in equality but fairness.

However, I think those that care for objectivity should point out the huge points of hypocrisy within society where feminists ask for equality.....but only for equality within the areas that will benefit them.

They don't want the nasty bits......and no one wants to highlight it because they get called sexist.

In fact the people who probably highlight it most effectively are those women who point out these issues....like karen straughan.

[Link]

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 11 Oct 17 1.29pm
Originally posted by Ray in Houston The cutting off of "healthy" parts if done so to prevent future medical issues is an entirely valid tactic. Getting circumcised prior to puberty avoids a significant amount of pain and suffering, and is a far more simple procedure (I had to have a full anesthetic, which itself has risks). Female circumcision has no medical benefits, but also is no more (or less) painful if done as a child or an adult. A parent can choose to prevent future disease and/or pain and suffering in their son's future by circumcising them; this is not the case for daughters. Unless you want to remove a parent's right to make medical decisions for their children... Edited by Ray in Houston (10 Oct 2017 5.47pm) I'm in favour of this - Parents are inherently unqualified to make medical decisions for their children - and typically the only cases really where parents do this is for reasons that are against the best interests of the patient, and in the interests of their own beliefs. The actual impact of this on reasonable rational people is minimal, because they tend to listen to medical professionals when they recommend treatment or surgery (because after all, its someone who is a medical expert, typically a specialist consultant, why would you think you know better). Of course on occasion the medical professional gets it wrong, however these are monumentally outweighed by situations in which the parents get it wrong (so much so they're rarely even news). Immunisation shouldn't be the choice of parents, it should be required. Its a very American thing. Like listening to the opinions of people who own guns, when trying to ascertain whether gun legislation is required. Opinions are meaningless, and not something that peoples lives should be staked on. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 11 Oct 17 1.29pm

Originally posted by Ray in Houston

The cutting off of "healthy" parts if done so to prevent future medical issues is an entirely valid tactic. Getting circumcised prior to puberty avoids a significant amount of pain and suffering, and is a far more simple procedure (I had to have a full anesthetic, which itself has risks).

Female circumcision has no medical benefits, but also is no more (or less) painful if done as a child or an adult. A parent can choose to prevent future disease and/or pain and suffering in their son's future by circumcising them; this is not the case for daughters. Unless you want to remove a parent's right to make medical decisions for their children...

Edited by Ray in Houston (10 Oct 2017 5.47pm)

I'm in favour of this - Parents are inherently unqualified to make medical decisions for their children - and typically the only cases really where parents do this is for reasons that are against the best interests of the patient, and in the interests of their own beliefs.

The actual impact of this on reasonable rational people is minimal, because they tend to listen to medical professionals when they recommend treatment or surgery (because after all, its someone who is a medical expert, typically a specialist consultant, why would you think you know better).

Of course on occasion the medical professional gets it wrong, however these are monumentally outweighed by situations in which the parents get it wrong (so much so they're rarely even news).

Immunisation shouldn't be the choice of parents, it should be required.

Its a very American thing. Like listening to the opinions of people who own guns, when trying to ascertain whether gun legislation is required.

Opinions are meaningless, and not something that peoples lives should be staked on.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 11 Oct 17 1.33pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Our jails are so over-crowded that it's surprising what you have to do just to get in one nowadays. The incident you link to is just another example of unfairness inherent between the sexes. I'm not saying that men and women should be treated exactly the same in all instances.....because I myself don't believe in equality but fairness. However, I think those that care for objectivity should point out the huge points of hypocrisy within society where feminists ask for equality.....but only for equality within the areas that will benefit them. They don't want the nasty bits......and no one wants to highlight it because they get called sexist. In fact the people who probably highlight it most effectively are those women who point out these issues....like karen straughan. [Link] Do you mean in the fact that he brought an allegation and got some kind of Justice, which isn't the norm in cases of sexual assault by men on women? I like the idea of equality but the way I view it in this case is 'there should be no escaping justice for sex offenders'. People who rape or sexually assault anyone should be held accountable, and all victims deserve justice. Our system massively fails women in this area, because the system is inherently unfairly bias towards the attacker in ways that other areas of the criminal justice system aren't. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 11 Oct 17 1.33pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Our jails are so over-crowded that it's surprising what you have to do just to get in one nowadays.

The incident you link to is just another example of unfairness inherent between the sexes.

I'm not saying that men and women should be treated exactly the same in all instances.....because I myself don't believe in equality but fairness.

They don't want the nasty bits......and no one wants to highlight it because they get called sexist.

In fact the people who probably highlight it most effectively are those women who point out these issues....like karen straughan.

[Link]

Do you mean in the fact that he brought an allegation and got some kind of Justice, which isn't the norm in cases of sexual assault by men on women?

I like the idea of equality but the way I view it in this case is 'there should be no escaping justice for sex offenders'. People who rape or sexually assault anyone should be held accountable, and all victims deserve justice.

Our system massively fails women in this area, because the system is inherently unfairly bias towards the attacker in ways that other areas of the criminal justice system aren't.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

johnno42000 11 Oct 17 1.39pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Do you mean in the fact that he brought an allegation and got some kind of Justice, which isn't the norm in cases of sexual assault by men on women? I like the idea of equality but the way I view it in this case is 'there should be no escaping justice for sex offenders'. People who rape or sexually assault anyone should be held accountable, and all victims deserve justice. Our system massively fails women in this area, because the system is inherently unfairly bias towards the attacker in ways that other areas of the criminal justice system aren't. The courts are far too soft on people who commit sexual crimes, be they women or men, but I do believe that had the offender been a man and the person assaulted had been a woman he would have gone to jail. 'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more'
Alert a moderator to this post

johnno42000

11 Oct 17 1.39pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Do you mean in the fact that he brought an allegation and got some kind of Justice, which isn't the norm in cases of sexual assault by men on women?

Our system massively fails women in this area, because the system is inherently unfairly bias towards the attacker in ways that other areas of the criminal justice system aren't.

The courts are far too soft on people who commit sexual crimes, be they women or men, but I do believe that had the offender been a man and the person assaulted had been a woman he would have gone to jail.

'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more'

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 11 Oct 17 1.45pm
If your personally chosen actions only hurt yourself then the state shouldn't stop you....unless it places an unfair burden upon the state itself. So if you seriously want to jump off that bridge....then while we should try to discourage you in the interests of humanity and I would personally say don't do it....Ultimately it's your life, your choice. However no one owns anyone else....even those you have responsibility for like your offspring. Our parents didn't own us and we neither do we own our children in absolute terms. So, if you actions are deemed damaging by the consensus within the state they have a right to stop you in protection of that individual's rights. Cutting of an infant's foreskin has no realistic medical benefit to justify the loss and it should only be a decision taken by an adult as an individual. The US....which apart from religious countries is the only country that follows this as a cultural trend is quite something in the modern western world. We shouldn't allow it here either. But them the apples....no matter how bitter the taste. Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Oct 2017 2.08pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

11 Oct 17 1.45pm

If your personally chosen actions only hurt yourself then the state shouldn't stop you....unless it places an unfair burden upon the state itself.

So if you seriously want to jump off that bridge....then while we should try to discourage you in the interests of humanity and I would personally say don't do it....Ultimately it's your life, your choice.

However no one owns anyone else....even those you have responsibility for like your offspring. Our parents didn't own us and we neither do we own our children in absolute terms.

So, if you actions are deemed damaging by the consensus within the state they have a right to stop you in protection of that individual's rights.

Cutting of an infant's foreskin has no realistic medical benefit to justify the loss and it should only be a decision taken by an adult as an individual.

The US....which apart from religious countries is the only country that follows this as a cultural trend is quite something in the modern western world.

We shouldn't allow it here either.

But them the apples....no matter how bitter the taste.

Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Oct 2017 2.08pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 11 Oct 17 1.58pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Do you mean in the fact that he brought an allegation and got some kind of Justice, which isn't the norm in cases of sexual assault by men on women? I like the idea of equality but the way I view it in this case is 'there should be no escaping justice for sex offenders'. People who rape or sexually assault anyone should be held accountable, and all victims deserve justice. Our system massively fails women in this area, because the system is inherently unfairly bias towards the attacker in ways that other areas of the criminal justice system aren't. I differ to you here on where the interests of objectivity lay. In my view, we have to remain neutral between the 'attacker' and the 'victim'.....Innocent until proven guilty.....I believe that we saw an illustration of this within our differences on the Ched Evans case. In my view....though I'm not privy to all the evidence....but if we take it at face value then I'd actually say the verdict is about right. Where I do agree with the complaint is that had the roles been reversed and the case proven....as it appears to be here....then if the sexes had been reversed then the sanction would have been jail time....probably significant jail time. That is unfairness. Jail times between males and females for the same crimes differ significantly.....for that there is little defence in my view. Again....this is another area that few 'feminists' are calling for equality in. Though women like Karen....who I linked to....they are. Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Oct 2017 2.02pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

11 Oct 17 1.58pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Do you mean in the fact that he brought an allegation and got some kind of Justice, which isn't the norm in cases of sexual assault by men on women?

Our system massively fails women in this area, because the system is inherently unfairly bias towards the attacker in ways that other areas of the criminal justice system aren't.

I differ to you here on where the interests of objectivity lay. In my view, we have to remain neutral between the 'attacker' and the 'victim'.....Innocent until proven guilty.....I believe that we saw an illustration of this within our differences on the Ched Evans case.

In my view....though I'm not privy to all the evidence....but if we take it at face value then I'd actually say the verdict is about right.

Where I do agree with the complaint is that had the roles been reversed and the case proven....as it appears to be here....then if the sexes had been reversed then the sanction would have been jail time....probably significant jail time.

That is unfairness.

Jail times between males and females for the same crimes differ significantly.....for that there is little defence in my view.

Again....this is another area that few 'feminists' are calling for equality in.

Though women like Karen....who I linked to....they are.

Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Oct 2017 2.02pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston Houston 11 Oct 17 3.35pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 I'm in favour of this - Parents are inherently unqualified to make medical decisions for their children - and typically the only cases really where parents do this is for reasons that are against the best interests of the patient, and in the interests of their own beliefs. I think this is the distinction that some here aren't making: medical or religious reasons for the procedure. If, after consulting a physician - who would also perform the procedure, in a medical facility - parents decide to go ahead, then that's an informed decision. Letting a dude in a black coat and ringlets show up and do it in your living room with a ceremonial cutting tool because it's God's will somehow, is something very different. I'm cool with the former and not with the latter. We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.
Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston

Houston 11 Oct 17 3.35pm

Send a Private Message to Ray in Houston

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

I think this is the distinction that some here aren't making: medical or religious reasons for the procedure. If, after consulting a physician - who would also perform the procedure, in a medical facility - parents decide to go ahead, then that's an informed decision.

Letting a dude in a black coat and ringlets show up and do it in your living room with a ceremonial cutting tool because it's God's will somehow, is something very different.

I'm cool with the former and not with the latter.

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston Houston 11 Oct 17 3.43pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays ICutting of an infant's foreskin has no realistic medical benefit to justify the loss and it should only be a decision taken by an adult as an individual. From Web MD [Link] Quote There is some evidence that circumcision has health benefits, including: A decreased risk of urinary tract infections. A reduced risk of some sexually transmitted diseases in men. Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners. Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin). Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location). Circumcision also makes it easier to keep the end of the p** clean. Web MD also states that: Quote The procedure becomes more complicated and riskier in older babies, children, and men. So, there are valid benefits and it's best done sooner rather than later. If a parent decides - in consultation with a physician who will also perform the procedure - that this is medically sound, who are you to tell them otherwise? We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just waing with a football.
Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston

Houston 11 Oct 17 3.43pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

ICutting of an infant's foreskin has no realistic medical benefit to justify the loss and it should only be a decision taken by an adult as an individual.

From Web MD [Link]

Quote

There is some evidence that circumcision has health benefits, including:

A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.
A reduced risk of some sexually transmitted diseases in men.
Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners.
Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).

Circumcision also makes it easier to keep the end of the p**** clean.

Web MD also states that:

Quote

The procedure becomes more complicated and riskier in older babies, children, and men.

So, there are valid benefits and it's best done sooner rather than later. If a parent decides - in consultation with a physician who will also perform the procedure - that this is medically sound, who are you to tell them otherwise?

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 11 Oct 17 3.46pm
Originally posted by Ray in Houston I think this is the distinction that some here aren't making: medical or religious reasons for the procedure. If, after consulting a physician - who would also perform the procedure, in a medical facility - parents decide to go ahead, then that's an informed decision. Letting a dude in a black coat and ringlets show up and do it in your living room with a ceremonial cutting tool because it's God's will somehow, is something very different. I'm cool with the former and not with the latter. Would you please stop telling us that there is an 'informed' secular medical basis for the commonplace circumcision of infants: there isn't. That isn't going to fly here. Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Oct 2017 3.48pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

11 Oct 17 3.46pm

Originally posted by Ray in Houston

Letting a dude in a black coat and ringlets show up and do it in your living room with a ceremonial cutting tool because it's God's will somehow, is something very different.

I'm cool with the former and not with the latter.

Would you please stop telling us that there is an 'informed' secular medical basis for the commonplace circumcision of infants: there isn't.

That isn't going to fly here.

Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Oct 2017 3.48pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 11 Oct 17 3.59pm
Originally posted by Ray in Houston So, there are valid benefits and it's best done sooner rather than later. If a parent decides - in consultation with a physician who will also perform the procedure - that this is medically sound, who are you to tell them otherwise? Guess you drank the kool aid where it fitted into your prejudices. [Link] That website is just another front for the American health industry. The sexual health of people in this country which has lower stds than in your country is simple evidence for that. [Link] Essentially you support a practice that is unnecessary in the first world and leads to the deaths of babies every year in yours and other countries. In my view you should stop supporting it. Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Oct 2017 4.00pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

11 Oct 17 3.59pm

Originally posted by Ray in Houston

Guess you drank the kool aid where it fitted into your prejudices.

[Link]

That website is just another front for the American health industry.

The sexual health of people in this country which has lower stds than in your country is simple evidence for that.

[Link]

Essentially you support a practice that is unnecessary in the first world and leads to the deaths of babies every year in yours and other countries.

In my view you should stop supporting it.

Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Oct 2017 4.00pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)