Are there single fathers, who never married, with children in the West?

[Robert.Evans]

Sorry, I never blamed you.
Regards

Now I apologise. It should have said "men". I missed the "n" out!

 

[Debater Slayer]

That's it. I henceforth declare that arguments are abuse. Let us rename RF to "Religious Abuse Forum." A community of fine abusive camaraderie!

 

[Draka]

Go ahead and keep posting that definition link repeatedly all you like @Robert.Evans , it doesn't say what you seem to think it says.

 

[leibowde84]

That is what feminist set out to do. I understand they don't say that now. Look into the history of it. It has nothing to do with equality. It was about power and money and female insecurites.

That's what they all say ... Without supporting evidence, comments like this make you look like an idiot.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Twisting definitions to fit your point of view seems to be what you do best. First we dealt with "fact", now we have to deal with you redefining "abuse".

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/abuse

When are you going to accept you worng in that one? Never?

 

[Draka]

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/abuse

When are you going to accept you worng in that one? Never?

@leibowde84 already posted a definition as well. A definition you have completely ignored. And yours doesn't back up your assertion. So...when are you going to accept you are wrong? Never?

 

[columbus]

Then, why should not men start taking adopting birth control remeasure instead of the women, if later on they cannot support the mother and the child?

Perhaps you did not read my post.
Due to poverty and religion birth control is practically nonexistent for the poor majority.
Another problem is one that is common in the 3rd world. There is no social security for the aged. If you don't have children to support you, you are in danger of starving in the gutter when you are too old to work.

Why should such men have sex with women?
It is neither equality not equitable, sheer cruelty. Right?
Regards

Because humans are programmed from birth to have sex. Either evolution made us that way or God did, but the fact remains that we are.
Getting judgemental about it doesn't help anybody.
Tom

 

[Robert.Evans]

Proves my point. In the definition here, there is an aggressor and a victim. Why would you cite something that contradicts your point?

I hope at the end of this you say you are a troll, I really do. I will quote this, just for you, though I know it is pointless:

The first part of the definition:

Use (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose; misuse:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/abuse

Anything can be abuse, not just your narrow view in order to manipulate. Come on now, admit it.

 

[leibowde84]

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/abuse

When are you going to accept you worng in that one? Never?

This definition explicitly contradicts your argument. Why would you cite a definition that goes against what you are arguing?

 

[Robert.Evans]

That's what they all say ... Without supporting evidence, comments like this make you look like an idiot.

Go find your own supporting evidence if it interest you. Where is yours?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Go ahead and keep posting that definition link repeatedly all you like @Robert.Evans , it doesn't say what you seem to think it says.

The only thing good about this post of yours was the film Princess Bride.

Abuse, be definition, can take many forms.

 

[Robert.Evans]

@leibowde84 already posted a definition as well. A definition you have completely ignored. And yours doesn't back up your assertion. So...when are you going to accept you are wrong? Never?

and where was his link?

 

[leibowde84]

I hope at the end of this you say you are a troll, I really do. I will quote this, just for you, though I know it is pointless:

The first part of the definition:



http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/abuse

Anything can be abuse, not just your narrow view in order to manipulate. Come on now, admit it.

That part of the definition applies to verb use of the term "abuse" when applied to inanimate objects ... hence the word "something" and not "someone". I would suggest sticking to the meaning of the term IN THIS CONTEXT. We are talking about the abuse of people, not about abusing THINGS like alcohol, drugs, etc. But, in actuality, even this definition proves my point. "Abuse" requires one person "misusing" another person or thing.

 

[leibowde84]

and where was his link?

http://www.thehotline.org/is-this-abuse/abuse-defined/
From the National Domestic Violence Hotline website.

 

[leibowde84]

The only thing good about this post of yours was the film Princess Bride.

Abuse, be definition, can take many forms.

You keep on saying "abuse can take many forms", as if someone here is disagreeing with you. this is nothing but a straw man, as no one has disagreed with this. Everyone here agrees that abuse can be verbal and physical.

 

[leibowde84]

Go find your own supporting evidence if it interest you. Where is yours?

I didn't make a claim about the intent of feminism ... you did. I merely pointed out that your claim was facially absurd, and you failed to provide even one iota of supporting evidence. Thus, it is an empty claim.

 

[Draka]

Domestic abuse is what we have been talking about so trying to use broadbrush definitions to argue that abuse is two-sided is dishonest at best.

Domestic Abuse

 

[leibowde84]

I hope at the end of this you say you are a troll, I really do. I will quote this, just for you, though I know it is pointless:

The first part of the definition:



http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/abuse

Anything can be abuse, not just your narrow view in order to manipulate. Come on now, admit it.

Obviously, we are discussing "domestic abuse", which has a very specific meaning, and, from the definition (below) seems to be one-sided.

Domestic violence (also domestic abuse, spousal abuse, intimate partner violence, battering or family violence) is a pattern of behavior which involves violence or other abuse by one person against another in a domestic setting, such as in marriage or cohabitation.

 

[Robert.Evans]

That's it. I henceforth declare that arguments are abuse. Let us rename RF to "Religious Abuse Forum." A community of fine abusive camaraderie!

I think you will find it says "discuss compare debate" not argue. And it would depend on the strength and repetitiveness of the argument as to whether it would be seen as abuse. There are many forms of abuse.

 

[Robert.Evans]

That part of the definition applies to verb use of the term "abuse" when applied to inanimate objects ... hence the word "something" and not "someone". I would suggest sticking to the meaning of the term IN THIS CONTEXT. We are talking about the abuse of people, not about abusing THINGS like alcohol, drugs, etc. But, in actuality, even this definition proves my point. "Abuse" requires one person "misusing" another person or thing.

Which in turn can be reciprocated.