By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Dulfite on 08 September 2020
Edit Thread
Jaicee said:
Dulfite said:

You said stuff before starting 1. So I'll respond to each thought in order:

1) My original response wasn't written to tick you off, but simply point out how some of the language you used could be interpreted as sexist. That wasn't mean shouting at you, or calling you a sexist for the rest of your life. I was simply pointing out something I thought would be helpful for you to see, another perspective. If you don't want to change your OP language that is fine and your right.

2) I never said women murder babies for the fun of it. Women are extremely stressed before, during, and especially after the procedure. Nothing about it is fun and I never suggested women enjoy it, so please don't slander me.

3) Regarding giggling, that isn't subjective. Babies giggle in the womb, and hiccup, and jump and do all sorts of other fun things. They are figuring out life in there and all the fun little things they can do. And sadly, despite all those wonderful indications that they are human, the needle still comes.

4) Regarding the 42% that are conservative feminists... But what does that mean? My wife is a 1/2nd wave feminist, but not a 3rd wave feminist. She hates abortion as much as I do. So again, what do those 42% even mean? I read a poll recently that indicated men are, by a majority, supportive of abortion. That same poll indicated women, by a majority, aren't supportive of abortion rights. Does that mean the majority of women aren't feminists simply because they don't adhere to 3rd wave ideology? Feminism is an unclear term in today's society as to what it means.

5) I never claimed to have evidence that this site was left leaning. It's just the feel I get when reading and making posts. I could absolutely be wrong here, but it is my opinion nonetheless. And Super Court Justices aren't the best proof of a sites political leaning. The electorate are usually okay with whoever a SC nominee is, as they aren't as politically charged as Congress or Executive members. That hearing was about personal stuff, and hardly about political issues or prior court cases, so people had to make a gut decision about who to believe. One side had no witnesses or evidence. It's innocent until proven guilty here, thankfully.

6) I won't pretend to know anything about waves of feminism in other countries. I speak purely on an American perspective.

Alright, I think I'm up to finishing my response to this post now. What follows should be seen as a direct continuation of my first reply thereto before.

5) It's remarkable to me that you view sexual violence as just "personal stuff" rather than as a crime. You also talk like Brett Kavanaugh was on trial for his life or something and thus deserved a presumption of innocence. In reality, the alternative to his confirmation was for Mr. Kavanaugh to retire to a life of luxury unimaginable to you and I, crying all the way to his mansion with only his family, friends, servants, and the entire Republican Party for comfort. Cry me a river.

No, when you're simply seeking a promotion like that to a lifetime post, you don't deserve such presumptions of innocence, you deserve the chance to clear your name beyond reasonable doubt, and he failed to in my book. (What Mr. Kavanaugh proved to me in his testimony was that he could barely control his faculties while sober, let alone drunk.) I was personally against giving someone who was realistically a sexual criminal the power to help shape what rights and protections the women of this country will and will not have going forward. So were the vast majority of Americans. So were NOT the vast majority of VGC users, in contrast.

I guess that's all I had to add to point 5. Just couldn't resist commenting on the Brett Kavanaugh case.

Unless there is evidence that proves otherwise, it is personal stuff. His personal opinion vs. her personal opinion. If legal evidence had been brought forward, that would be different. And yeah, he could have just walked away and probably had a lot less stressful life, but why should he? He was clearly qualified for the position, as are the vast majority of candidates that are nominated by Presidents (regardless of ideology). So why should he give up the honor of the office, something he and many others on the court or aspiring to be work their entire careers towards, because someone accused him of something but couldn't prove it? Is that fair to him or anyone else seeking that office to lose everything they've worked towards when someone accuses them of something done decades ago but can't prove it?

Also, whose to say there wouldn't be some other person waiting to accuse the next nominee? And then the next?

As to needing to clear his name absolutely, first of all I'm not sure what else the man could do than provide his calendar with hand written notes from decades ago and his own witnesses. Like, what else did you want from him? I'm sure if he had anything else to offer he would have, just like she would have offered more if she had anything on him. We were given the details that we were given, and we all have to make a choice on that. If you feel that nominees require perfect records with evidence showing no foul play, that is fine and your right to demand that. I'm curious what you would think if a Democratic nominee had something like this happen.

And for the record, if ever there WAS evidence showing he lied and did those terrible things to her, I would ABSOLUTELY want him to resign and face whatever legal consequences.