Re: Bad news for Little Mary Weeper (née Huber)

Jonathan Ball wrote:
> 
> frlpwr wrote:

(snip) 

> >>Nope.  Dummy.  They're talking about membership
> >>organizations.
> >
> >
> > So am I.  I belong to half a dozen kitten rescue organizations that have
> > 75+ foster mothers and 6 foster fathers as members.
> 
> And all of them are militant supporters of "ar".
> 
Once again you exhibit your total ignorance of everything involved with
animal rescue.

(snip)

> > Between rightists of
> > both sexes, men are more likely to commit felonious acts in defense of
> > animals.
> 
> Men always get the dirty work.  That particular dirty
> work seems like rather a high price to pay for a hippy
> girl's blowjob.

You, too, would stop at nothing to get a blowjob from her:
ttp://wave.prohosting.com/antiar/ARthreats.html

Don't say I never gave you anything.
> 
> > How many women are currently serving time for direct action
> > hits on animal exploitation facilities?
> 
> How many men are?  You have no idea, about any of this.

A closer look at a number of jailed animal rights activists seems to
indicate the number of men and women is fairly equal.  I'm very pleased
to know this.

(snip)
> 
> You claim, without support, that women are more likely
> to view animals with compassion.  I have news for you:
> most pork chops and T-bone steaks are purchased by,
> even if not eaten by, women.

The task of food shopping is normally assigned to women, Bumfuck, and
the larger size of most men make it highly doubtful women consume more
meat or than men.

(snip)
> 
> False.  Women are not criticized for not dedicating
> themselves to child-rearing.  

Then why does swamp use "childless" as if it was a synonym for bitter,
unhappy and needy?

> SOME women are
> criticized, justly, for the self absorption that leads
> them to refuse to bear and rear children.

It is self-absorption that leads to breeding, at least in the First
World.  There are plenty of existing children who need homes, why have
one or more of your own?  I'll tell you.  Because people like you want
children as extensions of themselves.  God help us.
> 
> > At the same time, there is
> > little social support for mothers with underage children and no husband
> > or family willing to help with the kids.
> 
> Nor should there be.  THOSE women shouldn't be having
> kids.  They should be in stable marriages before having
> kids. 

You mean stable marriages like the one that fostered you?

> In fact, more often than not, intentionally
> single mothers are showing their own brand of self
> absorption.  

Care to elaborate on this nutty theory?