Anonymous wrote:

Sure. Quite the credible argument you put forth here. Oh, wait, it's just a petty insult. Carry on.

You're providing zero arguments.

wrote:

BTW, MRA Doofus? Really? What are you, 12?

And you complain of petty insults? Where are your sound arguments and cogent reasoning?

wrote:

Since the first response to me was full of assumption (of that never detailed in the article) and lacking in anything but unsupported assertion;

Still no supporting arguments. I, in fact, outlined a few basic factual views.

wrote:

I will have to assume you disagree with my view that it would be a good to exercise due diligence. Care to explain why? I suppose you fall in the credulous fool category, and believe the world should look out for you, instead of taking responsibility yourself? Just guessing by your tone.

Still not a shred of argument to support your view.

OK, so let's get off the stupid back-and-forth you're presenting here, which is utterly boring. The ambiguity with your comment here is you seem to be going from the specific examples in this article and seeming to imply that this "victimization" of women is significantly part of the top topic in the news today, object of TIME's "person of the year". So, IN THAT CONTEXT, which a reasonable person can take from your comment, you seem to be suggesting that your comment about women in this article applies generally. You did not say so specifically, but all of language is always in a context. So please tell us what you meant more precisely.