A)Nobody has been trating Assange as being guilty before the trial.

As for the rest... yes it's copied and pasted core readings.  Which I got from an expert in the field, who finds your positon... ignorant. 

Hence the Engles link, in general they said someone who believes that way should "start from the beggining" if they want to actually learn something, though in general probably thought you were being intentionally and willfully ignroant, considering that well... the vast majority of the evidence is againt you, and to find such information and not realize it, you probably had to intentionally be looking for that kind of idea.

And no, citing people who aren't experts in the field does not counter it. Hell finding one lone researcher who actually has a degree in what is being talked about wouldn't.  Finding a few people that disagree with a basic accepted fact doesn't change anything anymore then the people who push intellegent design.

Fact is, you've offered nothing but pure fringe ideas from people who aren't experts in the field they are talking on.  The core beliefs and accepted fact of gender studies all directly go against your claims.

You'll find the occasional fringe arguement for literally, everything.  The mere presense of holocaust deniers existing proves that.  Regardless, at the very core, the ideas you've presented are considered completely not credible by the experts at large of gender studies... and that's just the sociological branch.

I mean honestly, what does it tell you when to get a degree to be an expert on the subject, basically every book and piece of research you have to read disagrees with your opinion? Reserach that has been going on for over 100 years.

I mean, you do realize that  is what your arguement is here.

"I know that basically every book and study that is considered important for being an expert on the topic says i'm wrong. However, I can find a couple people who disagree, who are very tangentially related to the field that disagree thereofre i am disproving it."

It's hard to have an arguement, because in general your opinion is so fundamentally wrong, that we literally would have to deconstruct everything and start back from the very start and very basics of it.  I mean, you want to try and disregard basically all credible accepted knowledge on the subject... of which, there is a lot.

I don't mean to sound contempful, but it's hard not too... as you are argueing a position that's about as equal in credibility as things like "being gay is a choice".  So it's hard to not come off that way

Yep, I can confirm he is no longer wanted and it was just a "dirty trick" as he put it. (source)

It was an untyped truth, every time you claimed I or someone else hated those women by saying that he might have a point about a fair trial being improbable.

So hold on, you know an expert in the field that think's my position is ignorant while I can't know an expert in the field who would think that you position is ignorant by virtue of their works?

Like I said you've been misleading through most of your posts, unless you would consider yourself an expert in the field your talking about and thus one of the people who read those books and all of them. The only way that could have been an innocent mistake is if you didn’t catch that I was talking about citing your sources.

Since it's a numbers game I'll use one of your kinds of arguments and say let's go back to the 1400's and consider that then that the earth was predominantly understood as flat by those who had the will and power to keep it that way. If anyone said otherwise within western Europe anyway they would meet a very nast end.

Now the fundamental belief at the time had (within western Europe) more published than the unpopular belief that the earth was round or spherical and other heliocentric ideas.

My point  is that there are others who associate the symptoms with misandry such as the emasculation of a four star general in front of congress by congresswoman over the word “Mam “. Despite you saying that being PhDs in philosophy and ethics and a credited writers on gender relations they don't fit the bill. As far as I can tell anyone within the field of Misandry consider anything published within the realm of study provocative.

Call me a sucker for the underdog.

---

Also with the percentages, I failed to mention mainly because I was sleepy and had an early morning that the percentages are not the issue, it's the political muscle to see those percentages increase that is the issue.

Some laws for female rights approach the issue wrong headedly and that just like a male rapist should pay child support a male victim should not be forced to pay his rapist child support. If you can't see the problem that comes from a victim being legally forced to pay his rapist child support then there really isn't much else to talk about. This goes back to one of my first arguments; that gender relations should not be looked at with the same eye as race relations. One is manmade differentiation and the other is natural differentiation.

Studies are all fine but it becomes an issue for political argument when women are roughly 51% of the population yet serve as 1/15th the prison population of the US and there is a will to see that ratio despair even further.

The second logic is that of the double standard men make for themselves that no man can be raped by a woman.

-- Sorry my prose was terrible. I was in a rush when typing this and I'm unsure if it's intelligible.

A) You don't have an expert in the field.  That's basically the whole issue.  To be an expert in the field, is to go through training that specifically shows why your arugement is... stupid.

B) The world wasn't understood to be predominatly flat in the 1400s.  Flat Earth theory was long dead by then.  Aside from which, Flat Earth theory was never actually as popular as people make it out to be.

C) However by claiming it was by those in power, you seem to now be argueing a world wide female conspiracy, at which point I'm just going to laugh.  Which actually was your only way out of the fact that well, everyone who's an expret on the subjcet disagreeing with you.  However I thought you'd have more common sense to go there.

D)  "No man can be raped by a woman" mentality is a byproduct of society seeing women as inferior too men.  Just how men are going to get way more critisized if they lose in a fight to a woman than a woman would if she lost in a fight with a man.  Woody Allen could lose a fight to Chyna from the WWE and people would still make fun of him.

It's not a refutation of a sexist society, it's a proof. 

That's the case in general with the majority of issues you can raise, that are quite literally a drop in the bucket compaired to the other side.

A. As long as we are talking about Ethic's I've indicated experts in the field, you seem to be bringing up male female relations, I argue fair enough but your arguing ethics so long as you keep the charge that myself and another poster are treating those two women like shit.

B. Oh that's right by now China had the impression it was a square  and Columbus did a pre-voyage around the world in 1399 just to set everything up for the church to explain later. Again your being suspicious and for the innocent reader Columbus had set sail in 1492 and not a single claimant of authority would with safety asured agree that the Earth could be spherical much less round until Magellan's voyage. Also note I was very specific on which part of the world I was referring because I know just about every civilization had a different idea of what shape the world was.

C. Again it's your everyone thing, the problem with dishonesty is it's always found in the convenient not usually intentionally but certainly from confidence in everyone else’s ignorance. - I'm happy you seemed to omit both my cases of feminism’s pragmatic application with the legal system. I'm going to have to assume then that your find with a 12 year old boy being raped by his teacher and told through  injunction to pay child support for her child.

D. We are in accord on D though, I think it should be pointed out here that I would always be forced to argue against women's rights as it is applied by feminists but I am for equal rights as it is implied by rational society. An example maybe?

I will always be against a woman being tied to a man through fillial contract and I believe that contract should be an independent body where both parties are obligated.

I will always be for women not being treated like animals and having the right to say yes or no to bearing a child or intercourse.

I will not stand for  separate financial aid services for specifically men or women.

These things do not omit though that women are the fairer sex and that they should not be under any obligation to take on the tasks men must bare. Such as heavy lifting, armed services and stand up comedy. ^_^  If they want to then so be it but none of the tasks that a man can do because his body can handle it should have their prerequisites bent or weakened so a woman could fill the role and likewise for female activities.

A) We really aren't talking about ethics.  At least, not the kind of ethics and ethics proffessor can answer.  Afterall we're talking about applied ethics.  "Is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving famiy." 

Except, instead of a loaf of bread, it's various laws trying to counteract a sexist culture that works in fairly complicated ways to the point of where you have to spend a decent amount of time studing it to understand how it works. (rather then think it's some global conspiracy to keep women down via some dudes.)

So yeah, Ethics proffessors, aren't really going to know enough on the subject compaired to people whose entire jobs it is to study this and come up with ways to fix it.

It's like asking who's an expert at solving a quantum physics question.  Someone with a degree in Quantum Physics, or someone with a degree in Mathematics.

Or, who is more likely to know the ethical implications of stem cells, someone with an ethics degree... or someone who knows what a stem cell is?

You are trying to apply a very strict moral absolutism along the lines of "It's wrong to steal to feed your starving family because it's stealing."   Though aren't even using the constructs of the law and are instead using constructs based on...

I'm not sure.

B)  This is just wrong.... in so many ways.  This again is a case of the "Every expert disagress with you."  This time, it's the experts of the 1400's. 

http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

C)  I'm.... not being dishonest though.  Like literally everyone disagress with you.  Aside from which, point to a law that directly says "People who are statutory raped must pay child support."

Outside of that just being some judges opinion on the matter.

D)  Your examples are stupid.  Afterall, there are plenty of women more suited to things like heavy lifting and the armed forces then me.

Even the differences between men and women that are physical are mostly social.  There were various tribes where the best fighters were actually female.  People who came across these tribes later suggeted genetic differences, before people discovered... that's just not how shit works.

Treat women and men the same, and even things like physical world records are going to shrink.  David Stern thinks that before he's done being commisoner a woman will play in the NBA.  I disagree, but only because unlike a guy, a really good woman isn't going to get a personal trainer at 14 and everyone isn't going to focus and support her like other players. 

Though, if David Stern is right, and he knows more about basketball then you or I... if it's possible for that to happen in the .0000001% of one of the most physical sports in the leauge...

the real physical differences certaintly are a lot less different then we'd like to think for the 99.99999% of us.

In a world where guys aren't given Gi-Joes and women aren't given dolls... I think you'd be surprised how similiar most things would turn out physically.  Sure there aren't going to be many 6-10 women, but there aren't many 6 10 people in general... and being 6 10 actually hurts more then it helps even in most physical endevors.

In any order then:

Reasonable points but you  are still contending with the laws of Nature, for example in a society where women's rights are exercised to what degree I'm unaware exactly there is currently a zero population issue, this is of course the Norwegian countries I'm speaking of. Enter the law of nature or to be more articulate Darwinian Theory of natural selection versus Artificial selection  by sheer egalitarian motive a question is has humanity for that region of the world reached a point where procreation can be seen as a hindrance? If so then what are the long term effects?

I'm not even questioning gender roles here so I don't see a need as I didn't see one before to reference male female relations.

Ah, you know I think I can see where the problem is, your an idealist and in no way can you deal with the pragmatics of your ideals, I'd usually say stick to the text books but that would be a great insult to perhaps many authors which may be undue considering your example. I will say that now I understand why you keep omitting my challenges and why you refuse to confront the issues that have actually happened, why at this point your simply out right lying.

Now I am aware of a fairly recent movement by the religious right to proselytize that the Christians never in fact tortured Galileo Galilee but historic revisionism should be a crime, also I clearly said such claims could not be made safely and not that it wasn't said. If you can't see the difference there then this is a dead topic. I also said that these men confirmed it to where claims against it would seem foolish and do to this day as a result of their experiments. Now what’s your point again?

Aye, you actually might have a point here though, if all women worked out their femininity and no longer had wonderful curves or some great buttocks or facial features, breasts, legs to drool over then men in the infantry would never be distracted by a butch, bull, Mohawk rocking, rifle totting killing machine… Well most men.

Your ideology is flawed it should be a woman’s choice to do those things and that again the prerequisites to do those things should not be bent to make sure they can join. If you can't understand that then again drop the topic. You seem to have very selective reading skills. If you need a publicized example watch GI Jane which is based on a true story.

It's odd how now we are talking about applied ethics but you've consistently dodged every example I've given of your ideology when applied. I'm calling on you to rationalize the cases of men being jailed for not paying child support after being in jail or in some cases prisoners of war. Or a statutory rape case where the child was forced to pay child support to his rapist.

A) Seriously, darwinism as it applies to society?  That's just, not how things work.  I mean if your going to try and apply sociobiology you should really look in to why it's not very effective at predicting large paterns.

also uh, you do realize your the one talking about idealism here right?  I'm talking about the actual here and now, while you are trying to hold things up to a fictional "If everyone is treated equal" consturct... that is well... fictional, because everybody isn't treated equally.

B) That, you were wrong.  Quite literally people did not think the earth was flat... and the church wasn't trying to stop people, this isn't revisionist history, revisionist history was that people thought the world was flat.

C)  I'd say it depends on the requirments TO join.  A lot of them are fairly arbitrary... like as you mentioned, the military personal tests.

D)  I'm not dodging them.  They just aren't worth talking about.

Show me where it says specifically "People raped need to pay child support." etc.  in laws.

Anyone can come up with a few bad rulings.

Do you have any numbers on the percentage of people are victims of statutory rape that have to pay child support?   Or the percentage of prisoners of war that got hit with child support claims?

It's not worth adressing until you can prove it... for all I know it's .01%

a) It's a systematic issue

b) It's actually related somewheer in the laws.

c) It's been ruled somewhere that a woman who was statutory raped or was a POW didn't have to pay child support.

I would consider one more than enough.

child rape: http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/geolr36&div=17&id=&page=

the page is 411. (don't want to mess up the url)

Actually I don't see anything in my original post that was alluding toward conceptual perfection thus negative on your statement of it being an ideal sir. If anything it was a criticism in the form of a question.

As for the flat earth piece I've already said what I can about this with regards to Galileo as my example. If it would suffice then I'll use a different example. Carl Wilhelm Sheele discovered oxygen but found himself at the wrong end of common knowledge and had to flee his mother land for America.