Re:Two words (Score 1)

Big latin words.

I am sorry, I will try to use something closer to your intellectual level next time. Please tell me how many syllables is your limit.

For baiting you.

You were baiting me? Do you normally screech "You've got a real stick up yer rear, dontchya?" at someone you're 'baiting'? Wow! Then I'd hate to see what you'd say if someone for instance ... I dunno ... questioned some deeply held prejudice, say.

It's just too tempting to tweak people who are so clearly off balance.
A little push always sends your type spinning and spitting.

Well, quite. For suitable small values of 'your type'.
I will leave it to others to judge which is more 'spitting and spinning', my comments, like:

Do you have any evidence that there are any significant number of people that think that "women are only good for babies" in the way many people in regressive countries (like the US) clearly think that men are only good for work?

or yours, like:

You've got a real stick up yer rear, dontchya? It sure must comfort your pride to believe such things ... [men] that think women are only good for babies... [men] tend to think they are good for housework ....[men are] used to getting their way without question ... denying men their basic right to sex on demand ... I had to save this bellyshaker for last ... off balance ... your type

Actually I owe you an apology, I claimed you didn't answer my original question, which was:

Or is this one of the "blame the victim" excuses used to deny men basic rights?

But you actually replied:

Oh how unfair, the overprivileged are being denied a privilege!

Which, of course, is using your assumption that men are overprivileged as an excuse for denying them basic rights (equal access to education is not a 'privilege'), exactly as I suggested. So you did answer the question after all! Thanks again!

Since you have ignored all of the points I have made, I will add a mini-summary of this discussion. If there is anything you disagree with, please correct, preferably without name-calling.

- - - - - -

Jherek Carnelian posted a comment gloating about men being discriminated against in the Phillipines, and implying they were 'asking for it' by being 'regressive'.

I replied asking 3 questions (below)

Jherek Carnelian responded but failed to answer a single question. He did make a large number of insulting comments, reflecting an offensive stereotype of men as the ones refusing to use condoms (actually it is usually women) and "used to getting their way without question".
He also claimed that I believed that "sex on demand" is a "basic right".
But unfortunately he failed to give any evidence for any of this.

I responded by repeating two of the questions and asking for an apology for the insults.
Jherek Carnelian responded with even more name-calling.

This leaves the following questions unanswered:

Does [Carnelian] have any evidence that there are any significant number of people that think that "women are only good for babies" in the way many people in regressive countries (like the US) clearly think that men are only good for work?

He has now had 3 opportunities to give this evidence and has failed to each time, so the answer is obviously 'no'.
...

is this [the idea that men are over privileged] one of the "blame the victim" excuses used to deny men basic rights?

Carnelian has indirectly admitted this by using it as exactly that excuse, but has failed to answer it directly despite being challenged twice on it. 'silence infers assent' so we'll take this as also accepted.
...

How would [he] like it if [he] were say, black, and some hate group sent a white to teach the white people in his village that blacks were 'biologically less valuable' or 'naturally violent' (both tenets of the feminist ideology regarding men)?

Again Carnelian has failed to answer, so we can assume that either:

1. He knows treating men as second class citizens is wrong, and yet is hypocritically trolling for karma by supporting it. Or
2. He somehow clings on to a belief that exploiting men is somehow 'different' from exploiting other birth-groups, but also knows deep down that he can't defend this position so instead runs away, changes the subject, insults and prevaricates whenever challenged to defend it.

Given that he has lost interest now that the topic is no longer on the front page of /., I'd guess 1.

Or, in a summary of a summary, thats 1 person on /. that wont be so keen to pander to prejudice for karma again.

Maybe next time.

Maybe not