Re. brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

John Knight jwknight at polbox.com
Mon Oct 28 18:40:46 EST 2002


"Cary Kittrell" <cary at afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:apk2p2$719$1 at oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
> In article <3DBD8B11.2010406 at hotmail.com> Bob <bobx23456 at hotmail.com>
writes:
> <Cary Kittrell wrote:
> <
> <> And when he was  f i n a l l y  forced to address this
> <> uncomfortable symmetry, he did so only to the extent of
> <> snarling something to the effect that men can't get preggers,
> <> so it's not important if they do or not.
> <> -- cary
> <
> <
> <And you disagree with that why?
> <
>
> Because adultery is potentially damaging to the marriage
> no matter which partner indulges in it.
>
>
> -- cary
>
>

To accept your "logic", cary, we must pretend that men and women are
"equal", but they are almost opposites, in many ways.

For example, men don't get pregnant, which is a difference that even you may
appreciate, eh?

Another example is that it's possible that one unmarried man could get a
thousand married women pregnant, particularly in this amoral environment
being promoted by the jewsmedia.  In such a scenario, 1,000 women would be
guilty of having sex outside of marriage, but no men would be.

Another example is that men, both married and unmarried, are ALREADY being
held responsible for their actions, but durn few women ever are.

A fourth problem is that we know who the mother is but it's really difficult
to determine who the father is if the mother LIES about it, which it turns
out they do a lot of.

These are four good reasons that WOMEN are the ones who need to be punished
for breaking their marriage vow.  This is not a reason for failing to hold
men responsible to them--but you "liberals" tend to follow the discussion
only about 75% of the way and break down at the critical juncture.

John Knight





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list