The point of the example must not be as clear as I thought then.

Galileo, and why did he start offending church figures? Nevermind the example was besides the point, I gave a much less disputable one anyway and again the point isn't the discoveries.

Hey if the ruling sticks with you so be it again it's an ethical difference.

As far as the rulings logic goes, the woman should never have been sent to jail because a 15 year old wanted to have sex with her -- bet she wished she had that judge for the rape trial.

Woops, my error it was Joseph Priestley, sorry about that again my error. John Adams gave him protection in the US from the church of England. (Easy for me to confuse the two.)

Actually, he likely would of found her guilty for rape.  The actual judicial arguement is

"This State's interest in requiring minor parents to support their children overrieds the State's competing interest in protecting juveniles from improvident acts, even when such acts may include criminal activity on the part of the other parent.... This minor child, the only truly innocent party, is entitled to support from both her parents regardless of their ages."

In otherwords... it would happen to a woman as well.  Do i agree with the ruling?  No. Is it any proof of any sort of sexism vs men?  Also no.  Which is the issue.  You aren't actually proving any sexism.

Also why did Galieo start offending church figures?  Because church figures perferred that things be taught as hypotheticals that disagreed with scripture unless you had demonstrable proof.  This being an era where the burden of proof was higher then it was now, pure mathmatical arguements being considered not good enough.  Galieo wasn't happy with teaching things just as a hypotehtical, even with an equally valid model out there.  The arguement wasn't even about heliocentrinism so much as mathematics, and even then likely wouldn't have been tried for hearsey if he didn't call the pope a simpleton in his book, a couple dozen times.

Also, as far as I can tell Carl Wilhelm Sheele never fled Germany for America.  I can't find refrence of him anywhere, fleeing anywhere.  I'm not sure if your confusing him with someone else or what is going on with that or if it's just more misinofrmation.  Was trying to figure out who outsed him... and it appears to be... noone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Wilhelm_Scheele#Disproving_the_theory_of_phlogiston

Aside from which... you keep talking about non-experts trying to foist a different opinion on a group of experts.  Which is exactly what you are trying to do.

Who is more like the Pope in the case of Galieo?  An expert in their field?  Or Nathansan and Young, two people with degrees in religious studies?

Do you perhaps have a case of a scientist being run out of a country by other scientist in the same field, perferably with a source so we're both sure this has happened?

Statutory rape covers corruption of a minor; however the minor conceded wanted to have sex with her that does not give standing for an injunction to be placed on a minor... but that's not for me to call as far as legal rights go this is the case.

Also at your flip side - that would require women impregnating men and so the argument meets a dead end there, as far as reality applies your argument can't be taken seriously even if it is a word game.

You didn't read my later post apologizing and correcting which scientist I intended to call on, I'm not sure if you still need me to answer your questions after that.

Anyway why did the Pope John Paul apologize for the persecution of Galileo and why did the church even put him on trial if it was the scientific community even more so the secular scientific community that objected to his claim?

I'm honestly curious about this and feel it's a loop hole, I did only a little fact checking but would like some resources if you're willing to share.

Again you're categorizing sexism in the same line as racism where as one is a issue based on physical and social differences and the other solely social differences. I call them the fairer sex and I've heard them called the adjacent species. My point is there are things that women can do that men cannot do naturally and those things are not a result of social understandings, they just are.

No it wouldn't?  Impregnation has nothng to do with the ruling.  It all had to do with both parents areeing to have sex.

Because Pope John Paul was a cool guy?  It's not like the church was right for killing him.  It's just not the reason most people think it is.

Also, no... that's my point.  It wasn't the experts who objected or persecuted him.  At the time, the Tychonian system was scientifically superior, but scientists didn't care what galieo said.  (either way everyone thought the world was a globe.)  The group that persecuted Galieo was a faction of the church with great power, though not the popes faction.   The Pope was actually good friends with Galieo. 

Generally, the popes ignore science, because usually the church had been a great facilitator of science rather then the opposite, but the "Inqusition" style branch gained a lot of power.  The moves Urban made were actually in response to threats on his own life, and after Galeio directly insulting him in his book, he literally had to try him or risk his own life.

The catholic Church's power base is a lot more interesting then you'd think.

Anyway, that's exactly my point though... those in the catholic church, are more like your claimants, and less like mine. 

As for the Physical differences between men and women... my response would be.... not really.

A woman can have children and... that's about it.

Men can't do anything women can't outside of peeing standing up and having good aim.

Therefore, the three things that would be different in an ideal world would be

1) Urinals

2) Aborition laws favoring women.

3) Custody laws favoring women when things are fairly equal at a young age because they went through more trouble to "birth" the children.

I guess we consider birth on polarized ends of the importance line.

As it stands there are abortion laws favoring unborn children versus a born woman.

Aye, excuse me but usually it's who is found to be stable for the child with whome the child ends up with. If that is usually the male then that is a personalized issue.

Again your language is what gives away your bias, it's always about giving women rights and that was my main point from before. That arguing for equal rights is not the same as arguing for womens rights.

As for church, the church is the church, maybe a bad example but if Microsofts gaming section goes to shit the office suites will keep that section afloat and I believe used to actually perform that task.  Friends or not the man was persecuted for his statements challenging the popular belief of the church and from what I understand unless my sources are wrong the secular intelligence at the time shared the geocentric belief.

As for the flat earth refference, I was wrong on that one, but you've been keeping on it for some reason that I can't figure out when atleast I think it was clear it was just an example of a paradigm shift. I ended up just pulling a different more accurate example.

I mean I could pull any example really and not the flat earth one to get to the same point.

That over 40% of Americans to this day don't believe that evolution actually happens.

That inorder to believe in the Bible as a theist you'd have to believe that the Earth is roughly 5000 years old and perhaps even that god put the fossils in the ground to test us.

That's just Christians, if you follow communism or other theocracies even socialism you'd have to believe that mandatory altruism leads to egalitarianism and that centralizing of power is accurate and in no way a sign of totalitarianism. Which is the exact line Plato took which has been tested time and time again by activists and philosophers who had gotten his ideal sorely to failure.

For the most part the past arguements were litterally reworked copy paste off of the spear head anti-misandry website reworked for the post as well as most of the refferences.

The entire point was to indicate there are other voices and that taking a charge to cripple men politcally and legally is the consequence of pushing laws that protect the select few and in this case that few is 51% of the worlds population.

I've made my position clear for that one. Oddly enough I wouldn't use the Spear Head for any type of refference as the sites blogger and commentors are flagrant racists but again it's just to get the point across.

As for the issue with the flat earth again my mistake, but again it wasn't the point and it would have held merit if I said 900AD and then the arguement would deal with Helenic teachings and Muslims and so on which would have brought the crux of my point out anyway.

In Layman's... be careful what you wish for...

And again, 40% of American's not believing evolution exists... is consistant, with YOUR point and line of thinking.

Every example you've given has gone against your arguement.  Not for it.

Cases in which men face a negative bias are a direct result of the biases towards women.  By getting rid of the negative biases against women, you get rid of the negative biases towards men.

While if you get rid of negative biases towards men... that's all you get rid of.

So yeah, it actually is argueing the same thing.

Problems men face when it comes to equal rights is specifically created because of inequality towards women.

They are symptoms to women not being considered on the same level as men.

Oh wow, so your trying to spin the point... that is really lowbrow. Sorry but I have to hit myself for not seeing the big picture of your argument, this whole time I thought you were making a point now I see your dancing around one.

If you want to take the side of ultra-feminism and go for laws that are totally lopsided in representation under the guise of equality and why? Because your the victim then you can take the bloody violin elsewhere.

I'm only  upset I didn't notice that's what you were doing sooner; I’ve never practiced this type of argument before.

I guess in the end this will be an argument for the next generation or maybe my own if I live that long, for now I'll stick with debating Islamic apologists who hold your “we are the victim” argument.

It's really the same argument in principle; I'm supposed to blame myself, my way of life and not the Islamic threat to it, and you would want me now to blame myself, my gender role and not the feminist threat to it. It's going to have to be a case of debilitating laws being enacted that force a revision on this topic.

If I'm wrong then a lot of wind, ink and buttons would have been spared the pain of explaining away sadomasochistic pop-fare.

Er?  I'm not dancing around anything?  That's exactly what i've said this entire time... an no there aren't lopsided anti-male laws.  Those laws you listed apply both to men and women.

What you seem to be talking about is cases where the laws are applied unfairly.  IE "Men can't be raped."

If not, i'd like you to point to an actual law that says "Men who are raped must pay child support."  The rulings in the cases clearly show if the reverse were true.  That is a man statutory raped a child, then won custody... the woman would have to pay child support. 

You haven't actually supported your arguement in the least... all of your arguements have generally supported my arguement...

I mean for example... you do realzie you are holding the exact same position as "islamic apologists".... right?  

The fact that you can't see the parallels in the arguements made by them and you in this thread are staggering.

I mean, honsetly, I don't even get what you think your argueing at this point.... I mean lets review.

1) You came up with some experts who were later shown to not be experts.

2) You brought up 3 analogies, two of which never happened. (Flat Earth and Oxygen) and a third that went against your point. (Galieo)

3) Brought up men of statuotry rape who had to pay child support.  The rulings showed the same would apply to women who were statutory raped and don't have the child... point still not made.

4) Brought up a case where a man was a POW and was thrown in jail for not paying child support... and offered zero support that this was because he was man and that it wouldn't happen to a woman.  It's just sexism versus men because... you never actually gave a reason here.

5) The prevelence of people not believing rape victims.  Which is true, and is true because people look at women as inferior to men, therefore it's impossible to be raped by a woman.  That and the idea that "Men want to have sex really badly, and therfore if they cheat it's natural."  

I mean, i'm not "dancing around" any points... I'm literally waiting for you to make one.  

Also for you to somehow tie this into Julian Assange.  

For someone hellbent to start an arguement not even tangentially related to the topic... i'd expect you to have a better one.