Comments by "ncwordman" (@ncwordman) on "Caller: What about cutting off men's "nuts" and "d*cks"?" video.

  1. What's hypocrisy is saying it's wrong for women to suffer (as I'm assuming is your stance), but it's okay if men suffered too or instead. No one should suffer. That's the correct, moral, and logical stance.
    3
  2. "She is not calling for a new, mini guillotine for male parts." Yes she is. That's exactly what she said. The point is that no one should suffer. But her point was that, even though it's wrong women are suffering, it would be right if men suffered too (or instead). That's illogical. No one should suffer.
    2
  3. Eye for an eye, in other words: which Jesus was against 2,000 years ago. It was also never taken literally, even as far back as the Code of Hammurabi.
    2
  4. She seems to want men to be punished too (or instead). If she believes women shouldn't be punished, then also (or instead) punishing men contradicts the ostensible justice and morality of her stance on women. No one should be punished, or have their rights taken away. She also sounds like she's "truly gone fishing."
    2
  5. I find your logic embarrassing, as a Democrat.
    2
  6. But women shouldn't suffer. Right? Because that's wrong. Correct? So saying men should suffer too isn't suddenly the moral thing to do. No one should suffer is the correct answer. So she's illogical, and that's the source of the confusion, @MisterFaucker.
    1
  7. Eye for an eye? If it's wrong for the woman to suffer, then it's just as wrong for the man to suffer too. I think David was trying to make sense of her comment, when it didn't really make sense.
    1
  8.  @DoubleGoat9Cap-Gem-Sag  "A story meant for explanatory purposes?" That's called a parable, or perhaps an allegoy. And she was not being metaphorical: hardly anyone is anymore. It takes intelligence and suspension of disbelief, and that got phased out long ago. And I'm not the one "responding in fear and defensiveness." She is.
    1
  9. Why? You didn't say so I have to ask.
    1
  10. If punishing one is wrong, then so is punishing two. Her argument is flawed, and she sounds like someone took her marbles away.
    1
  11. He obviously got that part. But what is she saying? She sure didn't saying anything like what you did.
    1
  12. If punishing one is wrong, then so is punishing two. Her argument is flawed.
    1
  13.  @tonilharmon  Agreed. Absolutely. And it's wrong that they're being punished. Correct? So does it become more wrong to punish more people? That would compound how wrong it is. That's what I'm saying.
    1
  14.  @tonilharmon  No, the phrase is Eye for an eye, which Jesus spoke against 2,000 years ago, and which even the Code of Hammurabi stated it was not to be taken literally. Don't just blow off what I said. It's wrong.
    1