Women want to be treated equally.....

[WinterBorn]

How can you call it "equality" when you exclude so many?

dear, Only practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy, fail my little test, the first time. stop being such a shill.

Also, if there is hypocrisy here it is from you. You used the word "equality" and then made it unequal.

not at all; everyone can flap their gums for Goodness instead of Badness, whenever they want.

And yet, you flap your gums for fantasies of manipulation and claim it is about honesty. It is not. It is about your inability to gain the attentions of the opposite sex. That is the sum total of your discussion thus far.

no dear, ad hominems are fallacies. nothing but, mr.diversion.

No ad hominem there. Just honesty.

You want to manipulate women got your own selfish desires. And you haven't got the balls to admit it, do you attempt to hide it in flowery language.

 

[danielpalos]

dear, Only practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy, fail my little test, the first time. stop being such a shill.

Your "test". Lmao!

Dear little Daniel, your supposed "test" was your statement about requiring submission before they get equality? Lol

Nice try at backing away from what you said. But no one is believing that bullshit

not at all, dear; it was about the concept; i don't need to leave the non-porn sector to prove my worth.

It was about requiring women to submit to being used in order to prove they are serious about equality. That is depraved and manipulative.

dear, it is about honesty. why insist on your red herring?

No, it is not about honesty. It is about depraved manipulation for your own selfish desires.

If it were about honesty, it would not exclude every woman who would not submit.

it is about honesty; terms are irrelevant; much like your diversions.

 

[danielpalos]

dear, Only practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy, fail my little test, the first time. stop being such a shill.

Also, if there is hypocrisy here it is from you. You used the word "equality" and then made it unequal.

not at all; everyone can flap their gums for Goodness instead of Badness, whenever they want.

And yet, you flap your gums for fantasies of manipulation and claim it is about honesty. It is not. It is about your inability to gain the attentions of the opposite sex. That is the sum total of your discussion thus far.

no dear, ad hominems are fallacies. nothing but, mr.diversion.

No ad hominem there. Just honesty.

You want to manipulate women got your own selfish desires. And you haven't got the balls to admit it, do you attempt to hide it in flowery language.

no dear; it doesn't work like that. ad hominems are just fallacy. much like yourself.

 

[WinterBorn]

Your "test". Lmao!

Dear little Daniel, your supposed "test" was your statement about requiring submission before they get equality? Lol

Nice try at backing away from what you said. But no one is believing that bullshit

not at all, dear; it was about the concept; i don't need to leave the non-porn sector to prove my worth.

It was about requiring women to submit to being used in order to prove they are serious about equality. That is depraved and manipulative.

dear, it is about honesty. why insist on your red herring?

No, it is not about honesty. It is about depraved manipulation for your own selfish desires.

If it were about honesty, it would not exclude every woman who would not submit.

it is about honesty; terms are irrelevant; much like your diversions.

Bullshit

What about the women who are married or in a relationship? They don't warrant equality?

What about the women who were abused or raped? Unless they submit to being used, they don't warrant equality?

What about lesbians? They must submit to men or no equality?

No, dear Daniel, you are to talking about honesty but about manipulation.

 

[WinterBorn]

Also, if there is hypocrisy here it is from you. You used the word "equality" and then made it unequal.

not at all; everyone can flap their gums for Goodness instead of Badness, whenever they want.

And yet, you flap your gums for fantasies of manipulation and claim it is about honesty. It is not. It is about your inability to gain the attentions of the opposite sex. That is the sum total of your discussion thus far.

no dear, ad hominems are fallacies. nothing but, mr.diversion.

No ad hominem there. Just honesty.

You want to manipulate women got your own selfish desires. And you haven't got the balls to admit it, do you attempt to hide it in flowery language.

no dear; it doesn't work like that. ad hominems are just fallacy. much like yourself.

That is EXACTLY how you want it to work. You do not care about equality. You care about manipulation. That is why only women who ask to be used qualify for equality in your fantasy.

I would be willing to bet, if you were tested, you would be (at least) borderline sociopath.

 

[danielpalos]

not at all, dear; it was about the concept; i don't need to leave the non-porn sector to prove my worth.

It was about requiring women to submit to being used in order to prove they are serious about equality. That is depraved and manipulative.

dear, it is about honesty. why insist on your red herring?

No, it is not about honesty. It is about depraved manipulation for your own selfish desires.

If it were about honesty, it would not exclude every woman who would not submit.

it is about honesty; terms are irrelevant; much like your diversions.

Bullshit

What about the women who are married or in a relationship? They don't warrant equality?

What about the women who were abused or raped? Unless they submit to being used, they don't warrant equality?

What about lesbians? They must submit to men or no equality?

No, dear Daniel, you are to talking about honesty but about manipulation.

it is your red herring dear; i am simply claiming, prevailing market based wages under any form of capitalism.

 

[danielpalos]

not at all; everyone can flap their gums for Goodness instead of Badness, whenever they want.

And yet, you flap your gums for fantasies of manipulation and claim it is about honesty. It is not. It is about your inability to gain the attentions of the opposite sex. That is the sum total of your discussion thus far.

no dear, ad hominems are fallacies. nothing but, mr.diversion.

No ad hominem there. Just honesty.

You want to manipulate women got your own selfish desires. And you haven't got the balls to admit it, do you attempt to hide it in flowery language.

no dear; it doesn't work like that. ad hominems are just fallacy. much like yourself.

That is EXACTLY how you want it to work. You do not care about equality. You care about manipulation. That is why only women who ask to be used qualify for equality in your fantasy.

I would be willing to bet, if you were tested, you would be (at least) borderline sociopath.

nope; you need more than red herrings and straw men.

 

[WinterBorn]

And yet, you flap your gums for fantasies of manipulation and claim it is about honesty. It is not. It is about your inability to gain the attentions of the opposite sex. That is the sum total of your discussion thus far.

no dear, ad hominems are fallacies. nothing but, mr.diversion.

No ad hominem there. Just honesty.

You want to manipulate women got your own selfish desires. And you haven't got the balls to admit it, do you attempt to hide it in flowery language.

no dear; it doesn't work like that. ad hominems are just fallacy. much like yourself.

That is EXACTLY how you want it to work. You do not care about equality. You care about manipulation. That is why only women who ask to be used qualify for equality in your fantasy.

I would be willing to bet, if you were tested, you would be (at least) borderline sociopath.

nope; you need more than red herrings and straw men.

I have used neither.

 

[WinterBorn]

And yet, you flap your gums for fantasies of manipulation and claim it is about honesty. It is not. It is about your inability to gain the attentions of the opposite sex. That is the sum total of your discussion thus far.

no dear, ad hominems are fallacies. nothing but, mr.diversion.

No ad hominem there. Just honesty.

You want to manipulate women got your own selfish desires. And you haven't got the balls to admit it, do you attempt to hide it in flowery language.

no dear; it doesn't work like that. ad hominems are just fallacy. much like yourself.

That is EXACTLY how you want it to work. You do not care about equality. You care about manipulation. That is why only women who ask to be used qualify for equality in your fantasy.

I would be willing to bet, if you were tested, you would be (at least) borderline sociopath.

nope; you need more than red herrings and straw men.

In order for what I wrote to be a straw man, I would have had to exaggerate. I didnt

 

[danielpalos]

no dear, ad hominems are fallacies. nothing but, mr.diversion.

No ad hominem there. Just honesty.

You want to manipulate women got your own selfish desires. And you haven't got the balls to admit it, do you attempt to hide it in flowery language.

no dear; it doesn't work like that. ad hominems are just fallacy. much like yourself.

That is EXACTLY how you want it to work. You do not care about equality. You care about manipulation. That is why only women who ask to be used qualify for equality in your fantasy.

I would be willing to bet, if you were tested, you would be (at least) borderline sociopath.

nope; you need more than red herrings and straw men.

I have used neither.

dear, that is all you have.

 

[danielpalos]

no dear, ad hominems are fallacies. nothing but, mr.diversion.

No ad hominem there. Just honesty.

You want to manipulate women got your own selfish desires. And you haven't got the balls to admit it, do you attempt to hide it in flowery language.

no dear; it doesn't work like that. ad hominems are just fallacy. much like yourself.

That is EXACTLY how you want it to work. You do not care about equality. You care about manipulation. That is why only women who ask to be used qualify for equality in your fantasy.

I would be willing to bet, if you were tested, you would be (at least) borderline sociopath.

nope; you need more than red herrings and straw men.

In order for what I wrote to be a straw man, I would have had to exaggerate. I didnt

dear, you have nothing but fallacy to work with. you need more than that.

 

[WinterBorn]

No ad hominem there. Just honesty.

You want to manipulate women got your own selfish desires. And you haven't got the balls to admit it, do you attempt to hide it in flowery language.

no dear; it doesn't work like that. ad hominems are just fallacy. much like yourself.

That is EXACTLY how you want it to work. You do not care about equality. You care about manipulation. That is why only women who ask to be used qualify for equality in your fantasy.

I would be willing to bet, if you were tested, you would be (at least) borderline sociopath.

nope; you need more than red herrings and straw men.

I have used neither.

dear, that is all you have.

Really? What irrelevant topic have I introduced? And what have I exaggerated or distorted?

And please be specific.

 

[WinterBorn]

No ad hominem there. Just honesty.

You want to manipulate women got your own selfish desires. And you haven't got the balls to admit it, do you attempt to hide it in flowery language.

no dear; it doesn't work like that. ad hominems are just fallacy. much like yourself.

That is EXACTLY how you want it to work. You do not care about equality. You care about manipulation. That is why only women who ask to be used qualify for equality in your fantasy.

I would be willing to bet, if you were tested, you would be (at least) borderline sociopath.

nope; you need more than red herrings and straw men.

In order for what I wrote to be a straw man, I would have had to exaggerate. I didnt

dear, you have nothing but fallacy to work with. you need more than that.

You like trying to sound intelligent, but you seem to be unable to grasp the meaning of the words you use.

You have used the phrase "cognitive dissonance" numerous time in describing me. But I do not have a conflict of dissimilar beliefs, and nothing I have said suggests that I do.

You have used the term "red herring". But I have not introduced another topic in order to lead you away from the original topic. In fact, I have tried to get you back to the original topic numerous times.

You have said my arguments are "strawman arguments". That would mean I have exaggerated or distorted something you said. I have challenged you several times to show where I have done so, and yet you refuse.

It seems to me that you just like to sound intelligent and have used these terms to avoid the discussion. Because you certainly seem unwilling to explain them.

 

[danielpalos]

no dear; it doesn't work like that. ad hominems are just fallacy. much like yourself.

That is EXACTLY how you want it to work. You do not care about equality. You care about manipulation. That is why only women who ask to be used qualify for equality in your fantasy.

I would be willing to bet, if you were tested, you would be (at least) borderline sociopath.

nope; you need more than red herrings and straw men.

I have used neither.

dear, that is all you have.

Really? What irrelevant topic have I introduced? And what have I exaggerated or distorted?

And please be specific.

this whole thread, dear.

 

[danielpalos]

no dear; it doesn't work like that. ad hominems are just fallacy. much like yourself.

That is EXACTLY how you want it to work. You do not care about equality. You care about manipulation. That is why only women who ask to be used qualify for equality in your fantasy.

I would be willing to bet, if you were tested, you would be (at least) borderline sociopath.

nope; you need more than red herrings and straw men.

In order for what I wrote to be a straw man, I would have had to exaggerate. I didnt

dear, you have nothing but fallacy to work with. you need more than that.

You like trying to sound intelligent, but you seem to be unable to grasp the meaning of the words you use.

You have used the phrase "cognitive dissonance" numerous time in describing me. But I do not have a conflict of dissimilar beliefs, and nothing I have said suggests that I do.

You have used the term "red herring". But I have not introduced another topic in order to lead you away from the original topic. In fact, I have tried to get you back to the original topic numerous times.

You have said my arguments are "strawman arguments". That would mean I have exaggerated or distorted something you said. I have challenged you several times to show where I have done so, and yet you refuse.

It seems to me that you just like to sound intelligent and have used these terms to avoid the discussion. Because you certainly seem unwilling to explain them.

nothing but diversion, dear?

 

[WinterBorn]

That is EXACTLY how you want it to work. You do not care about equality. You care about manipulation. That is why only women who ask to be used qualify for equality in your fantasy.

I would be willing to bet, if you were tested, you would be (at least) borderline sociopath.

nope; you need more than red herrings and straw men.

I have used neither.

dear, that is all you have.

Really? What irrelevant topic have I introduced? And what have I exaggerated or distorted?

And please be specific.

this whole thread, dear.

Every single word? lol

Like I said, be specific.

 

[WinterBorn]

That is EXACTLY how you want it to work. You do not care about equality. You care about manipulation. That is why only women who ask to be used qualify for equality in your fantasy.

I would be willing to bet, if you were tested, you would be (at least) borderline sociopath.

nope; you need more than red herrings and straw men.

In order for what I wrote to be a straw man, I would have had to exaggerate. I didnt

dear, you have nothing but fallacy to work with. you need more than that.

You like trying to sound intelligent, but you seem to be unable to grasp the meaning of the words you use.

You have used the phrase "cognitive dissonance" numerous time in describing me. But I do not have a conflict of dissimilar beliefs, and nothing I have said suggests that I do.

You have used the term "red herring". But I have not introduced another topic in order to lead you away from the original topic. In fact, I have tried to get you back to the original topic numerous times.

You have said my arguments are "strawman arguments". That would mean I have exaggerated or distorted something you said. I have challenged you several times to show where I have done so, and yet you refuse.

It seems to me that you just like to sound intelligent and have used these terms to avoid the discussion. Because you certainly seem unwilling to explain them.

nothing but diversion, dear?

If talking about "cognitive dissonance", "red herring", and "strawman arguments" would be considered a diversion, the guilt is yours. You brought them up. I am defending baseless accusation from someone too cowardly to do anything more than throw out vague insults and pretend.

 

[danielpalos]

nope; you need more than red herrings and straw men.

I have used neither.

dear, that is all you have.

Really? What irrelevant topic have I introduced? And what have I exaggerated or distorted?

And please be specific.

this whole thread, dear.

Every single word? lol

Like I said, be specific.

you lost all of our arguments; you resorted to fallacy for each and every one of them.

 

[danielpalos]

nope; you need more than red herrings and straw men.

In order for what I wrote to be a straw man, I would have had to exaggerate. I didnt

dear, you have nothing but fallacy to work with. you need more than that.

You like trying to sound intelligent, but you seem to be unable to grasp the meaning of the words you use.

You have used the phrase "cognitive dissonance" numerous time in describing me. But I do not have a conflict of dissimilar beliefs, and nothing I have said suggests that I do.

You have used the term "red herring". But I have not introduced another topic in order to lead you away from the original topic. In fact, I have tried to get you back to the original topic numerous times.

You have said my arguments are "strawman arguments". That would mean I have exaggerated or distorted something you said. I have challenged you several times to show where I have done so, and yet you refuse.

It seems to me that you just like to sound intelligent and have used these terms to avoid the discussion. Because you certainly seem unwilling to explain them.

nothing but diversion, dear?

If talking about "cognitive dissonance", "red herring", and "strawman arguments" would be considered a diversion, the guilt is yours. You brought them up. I am defending baseless accusation from someone too cowardly to do anything more than throw out vague insults and pretend.

it is your red herring dear; i am simply claiming, prevailing market based wages under any form of capitalism.

 

[WinterBorn]

In order for what I wrote to be a straw man, I would have had to exaggerate. I didnt

dear, you have nothing but fallacy to work with. you need more than that.

You like trying to sound intelligent, but you seem to be unable to grasp the meaning of the words you use.

You have used the phrase "cognitive dissonance" numerous time in describing me. But I do not have a conflict of dissimilar beliefs, and nothing I have said suggests that I do.

You have used the term "red herring". But I have not introduced another topic in order to lead you away from the original topic. In fact, I have tried to get you back to the original topic numerous times.

You have said my arguments are "strawman arguments". That would mean I have exaggerated or distorted something you said. I have challenged you several times to show where I have done so, and yet you refuse.

It seems to me that you just like to sound intelligent and have used these terms to avoid the discussion. Because you certainly seem unwilling to explain them.

nothing but diversion, dear?

If talking about "cognitive dissonance", "red herring", and "strawman arguments" would be considered a diversion, the guilt is yours. You brought them up. I am defending baseless accusation from someone too cowardly to do anything more than throw out vague insults and pretend.

it is your red herring dear; i am simply claiming, prevailing market based wages under any form of capitalism.

In order for it to be a red herring, I would have had to introduce a separate and distracting topic. I haven't. Your excuses are pathetic.