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This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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 8 of 21 < 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 >

Ray in Houston Houston 10 Oct 17 4.27pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays You cut me off because there are numerous obvious examples where we have equality without fairness. Your point about Hawking is a huge strawman. You obviously don't like it when the facts hurt your feelings. You gave me "numerous obvious examples" involving men's general physical prowess over women - I say general because I'm sure Ronda Rousy could kick both our arses, literally and figuratively. You offered an extremely limited view of how to value people in society. Hawking isn't a strawman, he's the posterchild for how invalid that value system is. 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 10 Oct 17 4.27pm

Send a Private Message to Ray in Houston

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

You cut me off because there are numerous obvious examples where we have equality without fairness.

Your point about Hawking is a huge strawman.

You obviously don't like it when the facts hurt your feelings.

You gave me "numerous obvious examples" involving men's general physical prowess over women - I say general because I'm sure Ronda Rousy could kick both our arses, literally and figuratively. You offered an extremely limited view of how to value people in society. Hawking isn't a strawman, he's the posterchild for how invalid that value system is.

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

Stuk Top half 10 Oct 17 4.30pm
Originally posted by Kermit8 The men do get a match fee of around £1,500 or they did a few years back. Not sure if that has changed. It all gets given to charity. The men's team take home no money. Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 10 Oct 17 4.30pm

Originally posted by Kermit8

The men do get a match fee of around £1,500 or they did a few years back. Not sure if that has changed.

It all gets given to charity. The men's team take home no money.

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 10 Oct 17 4.41pm
Originally posted by Ray in Houston You gave me "numerous obvious examples" involving men's general physical prowess over women - I say general because I'm sure Ronda Rousy could kick both our arses, literally and figuratively. You offered an extremely limited view of how to value people in society. Hawking isn't a strawman, he's the posterchild for how invalid that value system is. You said, there needed to be equality before there can be fairness. I showed you a very obvious example where equality flies in the very face of fairness. Rousy is a great example of someone earning what they are worth and doing well. She gets paid on her commercial value. Hawking has nothing to do with any point at all. He is an example of meritocracy. What have I said that somehow is against Hawking doing well? It just comes across as cognitive dissonance to me. I can go onto other examples of unfairness towards males, ranging from circumcision to taxes and family courts to sentences for the same crimes. I think tackling one issue at a time is better than throwing everything at the wall at the same time. Let's start with the law on male and female circumcision. Female circumcision outlawed, male circumcision legal. How is this fair? Edited by Stirlingsays (10 Oct 2017 4.42pm) '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

10 Oct 17 4.41pm

Originally posted by Ray in Houston

You said, there needed to be equality before there can be fairness. I showed you a very obvious example where equality flies in the very face of fairness.

Rousy is a great example of someone earning what they are worth and doing well. She gets paid on her commercial value.

Hawking has nothing to do with any point at all. He is an example of meritocracy. What have I said that somehow is against Hawking doing well? It just comes across as cognitive dissonance to me.

I can go onto other examples of unfairness towards males, ranging from circumcision to taxes and family courts to sentences for the same crimes.

I think tackling one issue at a time is better than throwing everything at the wall at the same time. Let's start with the law on male and female circumcision.

Female circumcision outlawed, male circumcision legal. How is this fair?

Edited by Stirlingsays (10 Oct 2017 4.42pm)

'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 10 Oct 17 4.42pm
Originally posted by Stuk It all gets given to charity. The men's team take home no money. It used to be that playing for the national team was the only way to showcase yourself to get sponsorships and lucrative transfers. Now, wall-to-wall TV coverage of league games does that, so playing for your country has become - for many - a chore that takes away from, and potentially threatens, their money-spinning club career. Yet another thing about football that has been destroyed by the Premier League. It came into being in 1992; England's last good showing at an international tournament was Italia '90. Coincidence? 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 10 Oct 17 4.42pm

Originally posted by Stuk

It all gets given to charity. The men's team take home no money.

It used to be that playing for the national team was the only way to showcase yourself to get sponsorships and lucrative transfers. Now, wall-to-wall TV coverage of league games does that, so playing for your country has become - for many - a chore that takes away from, and potentially threatens, their money-spinning club career.

Yet another thing about football that has been destroyed by the Premier League. It came into being in 1992; England's last good showing at an international tournament was Italia '90. Coincidence?

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 10 Oct 17 4.45pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays You said, there needed to be equality before there can be fairness. I showed you a very obvious example where equality flies in the very face of fairness. Rousy is a great example of someone earning what they are worth and doing well. She gets paid on her commercial value. Hawking has nothing to do with any point at all. He is an example of meritocracy. What have I said that somehow is against Hawking doing well? It just comes across as cognitive dissonance to me. I can go onto other examples of unfairness towards males, ranging from circumcision to taxes and family courts to sentences for the same crimes. I think tackling one issue at a time is better than throwing everything at the wall at the same time. Let's start with the law on male and female circumcision. Female circumcision outlawed, male circumcision legal. How is this fair? Female circumcision is medically unnecessary; male circumcision has known medical benefits. It's one of the reasons I opted to have it done as an adult. 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 10 Oct 17 4.45pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

You said, there needed to be equality before there can be fairness. I showed you a very obvious example where equality flies in the very face of fairness.

Rousy is a great example of someone earning what they are worth and doing well. She gets paid on her commercial value.

Hawking has nothing to do with any point at all. He is an example of meritocracy. What have I said that somehow is against Hawking doing well? It just comes across as cognitive dissonance to me.

I can go onto other examples of unfairness towards males, ranging from circumcision to taxes and family courts to sentences for the same crimes.

I think tackling one issue at a time is better than throwing everything at the wall at the same time. Let's start with the law on male and female circumcision.

Female circumcision outlawed, male circumcision legal. How is this fair?

Female circumcision is medically unnecessary; male circumcision has known medical benefits. It's one of the reasons I opted to have it done as an adult.

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

Stuk Top half 10 Oct 17 4.53pm
Originally posted by Ray in Houston It used to be that playing for the national team was the only way to showcase yourself to get sponsorships and lucrative transfers. Now, wall-to-wall TV coverage of league games does that, so playing for your country has become - for many - a chore that takes away from, and potentially threatens, their money-spinning club career. Yet another thing about football that has been destroyed by the Premier League. It came into being in 1992; England's last good showing at an international tournament was Italia '90. Coincidence? I'm not sure I agree. To use a Palace player as an example, we paid £1m (a then record) for Nigel Martyn in 1989 when he had no England caps and was playing the 3rd division. 1996 was the last decent showing also, albeit with home advantage. Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 10 Oct 17 4.53pm

Originally posted by Ray in Houston

Yet another thing about football that has been destroyed by the Premier League. It came into being in 1992; England's last good showing at an international tournament was Italia '90. Coincidence?

I'm not sure I agree. To use a Palace player as an example, we paid £1m (a then record) for Nigel Martyn in 1989 when he had no England caps and was playing the 3rd division.

1996 was the last decent showing also, albeit with home advantage.

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 10 Oct 17 4.54pm
Originally posted by Ray in Houston Female circumcision is medically unnecessary; male circumcision has known medical benefits. It's one of the reasons I opted to have it done as an adult. ? I'm not even going to argue with you on that....you believe what you want and you voluntarily getting circumcised as an adult is not an issue. What I will say is that while male circumcision can be necessary for medical reasons early on....this is rare. There is no excuse for male circumcision being performed on babies......none. It is barbaric....religious or cultural. So outside of rare medical reasons, there is no excuse for the unfairness of allowing infant male circumcision and banning infant female circumcision. Edited by Stirlingsays (10 Oct 2017 4.55pm) '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

10 Oct 17 4.54pm

Originally posted by Ray in Houston

Female circumcision is medically unnecessary; male circumcision has known medical benefits. It's one of the reasons I opted to have it done as an adult.

I'm not even going to argue with you on that....you believe what you want and you voluntarily getting circumcised as an adult is not an issue.

What I will say is that while male circumcision can be necessary for medical reasons early on....this is rare.

There is no excuse for male circumcision being performed on babies......none. It is barbaric....religious or cultural.

So outside of rare medical reasons, there is no excuse for the unfairness of allowing infant male circumcision and banning infant female circumcision.

Edited by Stirlingsays (10 Oct 2017 4.55pm)

'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

Michaelawt85 Bexley 10 Oct 17 4.58pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays ? I'm not even going to argue with you on that....you believe what you want and you voluntarily getting circumcised as an adult is not an issue. What I will say is that while male circumcision can be necessary for medical reasons early on....this is rare. There is no excuse for male circumcision being performed on babies......none. It is barbaric....religious or cultural. So outside of rare medical reasons, there is no excuse for the unfairness of allowing infant male circumcision and banning infant female circumcision. Edited by Stirlingsays (10 Oct 2017 4.55pm) Totally agree. Wouldn't know whether a boy or man needed a circumcision for medical reasons until they were older. Not a couple of days old whilst awake without the use of a proper anaesthetic and outside of a hospital or medical setting. f***ing barbaric. The pain must be indescribable When I was a young girl my Mother said to me.. You listen here kid you're CPFC
Alert a moderator to this post

Michaelawt85

Bexley 10 Oct 17 4.58pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

I'm not even going to argue with you on that....you believe what you want and you voluntarily getting circumcised as an adult is not an issue.

What I will say is that while male circumcision can be necessary for medical reasons early on....this is rare.

There is no excuse for male circumcision being performed on babies......none. It is barbaric....religious or cultural.

So outside of rare medical reasons, there is no excuse for the unfairness of allowing infant male circumcision and banning infant female circumcision.

Edited by Stirlingsays (10 Oct 2017 4.55pm)

Totally agree. Wouldn't know whether a boy or man needed a circumcision for medical reasons until they were older. Not a couple of days old whilst awake without the use of a proper anaesthetic and outside of a hospital or medical setting. f***ing barbaric. The pain must be indescribable

When I was a young girl my Mother said to me.. You listen here kid you're CPFC

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 10 Oct 17 4.59pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays ? I'm not even going to argue with you on that....you believe what you want and you voluntarily getting circumcised as an adult is not an issue. What I will say is that while male circumcision can be necessary for medical reasons early on....this is rare. There is no excuse for male circumcision being performed on babies......none. It is barbaric....religious or cultural. So outside of rare medical reasons, there is no excuse for the unfairness of allowing infant male circumcision and banning infant female circumcision. Edited by Stirlingsays (10 Oct 2017 4.55pm) Anti Semite.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 10 Oct 17 4.59pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

I'm not even going to argue with you on that....you believe what you want and you voluntarily getting circumcised as an adult is not an issue.

What I will say is that while male circumcision can be necessary for medical reasons early on....this is rare.

There is no excuse for male circumcision being performed on babies......none. It is barbaric....religious or cultural.

So outside of rare medical reasons, there is no excuse for the unfairness of allowing infant male circumcision and banning infant female circumcision.

Edited by Stirlingsays (10 Oct 2017 4.55pm)

Anti Semite.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 10 Oct 17 5.01pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Strawman situation construction. If you hold something important from me and my partner and I pay you and require you to release it only with both our consent and then you just give it to her without being in contact with me then you are negligent. You bare some responsibility. I don't think that's how the contract is set up though, effectively its more that you and your partner have engaged them to provide certain services(presumably fertility services). Now I think its a bit odd that only a signature is required - but if contractually all that's required is a signature - which seems to be the case - then it would be 'reasonable' to assume they discharged their legal obligations under the contract - and that they're not required to verify the signature of consent to any real degree (i.e. if it looks like his signature that's on file, that's enough). Consent for implantation I would imagine is inherent in the engagement of the service (as these were inseminated embryos with both parties biological materials) with the two parties. Maybe its not uncommon for people to turn up with signed consent only for implantation. Also there is a question of reality of damages - Does he have to pay for the support of the child? What emotional or mental damage was suffered? Was there any material loss (probably not, as the material stored has no resale value, and the only other option would be to destroy the material). "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 10 Oct 17 5.01pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Strawman situation construction.

If you hold something important from me and my partner and I pay you and require you to release it only with both our consent and then you just give it to her without being in contact with me then you are negligent.

You bare some responsibility.

I don't think that's how the contract is set up though, effectively its more that you and your partner have engaged them to provide certain services(presumably fertility services).

Now I think its a bit odd that only a signature is required - but if contractually all that's required is a signature - which seems to be the case - then it would be 'reasonable' to assume they discharged their legal obligations under the contract - and that they're not required to verify the signature of consent to any real degree (i.e. if it looks like his signature that's on file, that's enough).

Consent for implantation I would imagine is inherent in the engagement of the service (as these were inseminated embryos with both parties biological materials) with the two parties. Maybe its not uncommon for people to turn up with signed consent only for implantation.

Also there is a question of reality of damages - Does he have to pay for the support of the child? What emotional or mental damage was suffered? Was there any material loss (probably not, as the material stored has no resale value, and the only other option would be to destroy the material).

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

Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston Houston 10 Oct 17 5.01pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays I'm not even going to argue with you on that....you believe what you want and you voluntarily getting circumcised as an adult is not an issue. What I will say is that while male circumcision can be necessary for medical reasons early on....this is rare. There is no excuse for male circumcision being performed on babies......none. It is barbaric....religious or cultural. So outside of rare medical reasons, there is no excuse for the unfairness of allowing infant male circumcision and banning infant female circumcision. So you are against vaccination also? 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 10 Oct 17 5.01pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

I'm not even going to argue with you on that....you believe what you want and you voluntarily getting circumcised as an adult is not an issue.

What I will say is that while male circumcision can be necessary for medical reasons early on....this is rare.

There is no excuse for male circumcision being performed on babies......none. It is barbaric....religious or cultural.

So outside of rare medical reasons, there is no excuse for the unfairness of allowing infant male circumcision and banning infant female circumcision.

So you are against vaccination also?

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 10 Oct 17 5.03pm
Originally posted by Michaelawt85 Totally agree. Wouldn't know whether a boy or man needed a circumcision for medical reasons until they were older. Not a couple of days old whilst awake without the use of a proper anaesthetic and outside of a hospital or medical setting. f***ing barbaric. The pain must be indescribable Unlike their crazy gun laws...which you know are never going to change much.... you'd at least hope that this great country could at least come to its senses on this utterly ridiculous practice. Apparently the trends are slowly changing. '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

10 Oct 17 5.03pm

Originally posted by Michaelawt85

Unlike their crazy gun laws...which you know are never going to change much.... you'd at least hope that this great country could at least come to its senses on this utterly ridiculous practice.

Apparently the trends are slowly changing.

'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

Page 8 of 21 < 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

More unfairness for males

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors