Hitting Women

Originally posted by knightwest
It makes me laugh when forum users try to gauge the validity of someone's post from their RHP rating.

I like to do that to people that brag about being smart on a chess forum. It was more effective when I had a 1600+ rating though.

Originally posted by Tyrannosauruschex
I dont say anything without thinking of the implications beforehand, so no I dont regret that a comedy post has been taken to be an actual representation of what I think.

While we are on the subject of colossal blunders, take a look at move 27 Game 3426253

Wait a minute, he got 2 rooks for a queen. Not necessarily a brilliant move but I wouldn't say it was a blunder.

Originally posted by Tyrannosauruschex
I dont say anything without thinking of the implications beforehand, so no I dont regret that a comedy post has been taken to be an actual representation of what I think.

While we are on the subject of colossal blunders, take a look at move 27 Game 3426253

yes that move will forever haunt me because it was such a huge mistake. how could i made such a colossal blunder? I will never be able to emit an opinion out of fear of committing such a mistake again. (by never i really mean the time it takes me to write this post)

Well since we are at the subject of comedy, i have more. Why not take a cute cuddly puppy, stick a firecracker up his ass and light it? or find a homeless guy and beat the crap out of him. Or give someone xLax in his coffee? If you like all the friends ca watch and cheer. Why stop at your rodeo, why not kill the cute cuddly puppy.

Originally posted by twiceaknight
Wait a minute, he got 2 rooks for a queen. Not necessarily a brilliant move but I wouldn't say it was a blunder.

🙂 actually it was. i make a habit of staying late and just before i go to bed i move. as you can see, the knight is threatening my rook, instead of moving it i completely forget about the knight and move the bishop with the intent of making the queen move from the 1 line. well the invisible knight captured my rook 🙂

EDIT oh i thought you were reffering to the last move. Well anyways it is not a game i am particularly proud of

Originally posted by Tyrannosauruschex
This can be quite a controversial issue but I feel that in the modern day, women are not as weak and reclusive as they once were and sometimes flaunt the archaic unspoken rule of not hitting women.

For example, in a case I heard about, a gang of kids attacked some guy in the street, he fended off the male members but was too chivalrous to hit th ...[text shortened]... o receive no retalliation because men 'cant' hit women then the old rules should be rethought.

I tend to agree with you on the subject of the thread. It's actually a bit condescending towards women to say that you would never hit them under any circumstances.

Its a bit like saying "women and children first" in a disaster. I understand the children part, but why women first? If I was a woman I don't think I would like to be put in the same group as children in that way.

Also, as a modern free thinking man I don't understand why women should go first in a disaster. Why should they? I don't think they are any more vulnerable than me in a disaster. Are their lives more important than mine?

Originally posted by twiceaknight
I tend to agree with you on the subject of the thread. It's actually a bit condescending towards women to say that you would never hit them under any circumstances.

Its a bit like saying "women and children first" in a disaster. I understand the children part, but why women first? If I was a woman I don't think I would like to be put in the same grou ...[text shortened]... y are any more vulnerable than me in a disaster. Are their lives more important than mine?

yes. 🙂
not because they are more vulnerable, it is because they are more important for the perpetuation of the species. so if 90% of the worlds men would disappear, the human race won't miss them.

i know it isn't as important but if you think about it, a woman surviving and having children is more important than a man surviving.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yes. 🙂
not because they are more vulnerable, it is because they are more important for the perpetuation of the species. so if 90% of the worlds men would disappear, the human race won't miss them.

i know it isn't as important but if you think about it, a woman surviving and having children is more important than a man surviving.

That depends on your point of view. If you believe that overpopulation is the worlds biggest problem, perhaps the men should "go first", lol.

This idea of women and children first would have made sense in the past, for the reasons you state, but now I think we should maybe reconsider.

(BTW I'm NOT suggesting all the men should charge out of burning buildings whilst trampling the women underfoot, but I am just pointing out a cultural contradiction to "equality".)

Originally posted by twiceaknight
That depends on your point of view. If you believe that overpopulation is the worlds biggest problem, perhaps the men should "go first", lol.

This idea of women and children first would have made sense in the past, for the reasons you state, but now I think we should maybe reconsider.

(BTW I'm NOT suggesting all the men should charge out of burn ...[text shortened]... ng the women underfoot, but I am just pointing out a cultural contradiction to "equality".)

The amount of culture contraditions is amazing

For example, women have the right to be paid the same as men (fair enough), but if you ask a women out on a date, how many actually offer to pay ?

Women, have the right to be treated equaly (again fair enough), but if you donlt open doors then your not a gentlman

Its seems like when it suit a women, she wants equality, but when it does not, then its the "I'm a women" argument

But hey thats life, can't live with them or live without them .. ; )

Originally posted by RSMA1234
The amount of culture contraditions is amazing

For example, women have the right to be paid the same as men (fair enough), but if you ask a women out on a date, how many actually offer to pay ?

Women, have the right to be treated equaly (again fair enough), but if you donlt open doors then your not a gentlman

Its seems like when it suit a women, sh ...[text shortened]... 'm a women" argument

But hey thats life, can't live with them or live without them .. ; )

Yes and more significantly, I was told around 90% of women get the kids and the house!!!!! in a divorce in the UK.

And this is the way it will stay. There was the first "men's rights" movement called Fathers for Justice, but that descended into violence within a few months, and was therefore discredited and as far as I know, it is over. Sad really.

Originally posted by twiceaknight
Yes and more significantly, I was told around 90% of women get the kids and the house!!!!! in a divorce in the UK.

And this is the way it will stay. There was the first "men's rights" movement called Fathers for Justice, but that descended into violence within a few months, and was therefore discredited and as far as I know, it is over. Sad really.

The people who are in Fathers for Justice behave in such a way that judges have no options other than uphold the mothers' choice to refuse access to the children.

Originally posted by knightwest
The people who are in Fathers for Justice behave in such a way that judges have no options other than uphold the mothers' choice to refuse access to the children.

Exactly. Its sad isn't it.

Originally posted by twiceaknight
Exactly. Its sad isn't it.

Back when F4J were campaigning aggressively I spent some time thinking about this and came to the conclusion that these guys are doing themselves no favours at all.

First of all, there will be some sort of reason why a woman is refusing visitation rights, secondly, scaling a crane or Buckingham Palace etc in a Spidey costume will only re-enforce that belief that maybe this suy should not be allowed anywhere near children.

you'd think they would be smarter about it.

Originally posted by twiceaknight
Yes and more significantly, I was told around 90% of women get the kids and the house!!!!! in a divorce in the UK.

And this is the way it will stay. There was the first "men's rights" movement called Fathers for Justice, but that descended into violence within a few months, and was therefore discredited and as far as I know, it is over. Sad really.

The UK is the best place for a women to get D'ed in the world

I think womens rights have gone here a biot too far now, I know a guy that got d'ed after one year (with o kids) and the wife ends up getting half his whole assets that he had worked for over 20 years......

Originally posted by RSMA1234
The UK is the best place for a women to get D'ed in the world

I think womens rights have gone here a biot too far now, I know a guy that got d'ed after one year (with o kids) and the wife ends up getting half his whole assets that he had worked for over 20 years......

the poor guy married for love and love made him forget the little piece of paper: the prenup. it really pisses me off when a woman(and nowadays men too) marry someone, and then divorce and get half the assets even though they didn't brought anything into the marriage.

i am dirt poor so i wouldn't have anything to prenup about. but still, as Chris Rock said, if you have 10 million dollars is not that bad in case of a divorce because you would still have 5 mills left. But if you have 40000 dollars put away and the wife takes half then you really got scrwd.

of course, things are not so simple but make that bloody prenuptial agreement. a contract can always be changed later on depending on certain conditions. but if the spouse divorces you and there is no piece of paper, then you are toast

Originally posted by RSMA1234
The amount of culture contraditions is amazing

For example, women have the right to be paid the same as men (fair enough), but if you ask a women out on a date, how many actually offer to pay ?

Women, have the right to be treated equaly (again fair enough), but if you donlt open doors then your not a gentlman

Its seems like when it suit a women, sh ...[text shortened]... 'm a women" argument

But hey thats life, can't live with them or live without them .. ; )

on that subject, it is ok for the guy to pay, because he is shopping for what the woman is selling.