See my reply to your other post.

Spare me. Please, PLEASE spare me. My takeaway from your post was "She shouldn't be allowed on the adult list, nor should any child." Judging by the entire subsequent conversation, that was not at all what you were saying. If I could delete the post, I would, and I'd REALLY appreciate it if you dismissed it.

And I'm not debating that. I'm saying that keeping one of the five off the list, or intentionally putting them below another because of a factor that has no bearing on the safety of the others, ain't right.

The article is about changing the rules so that children under a certain age are not automatically lower on the list. Putting people lower on the list is endangering them.

She's not in the line at all. She's in the vague direction of the line because of discriminatory practices.

And if any OTHER child can eventually be put on the list and saved because of it, they are also benefiting from media savvy, which is totally unfair, so let's just prevent all children under age 12 who need transplants from ever having a chance at surviving, regardless of how many donors are available.

You're right. We should condemn her to death rather than putting her on a list and giving her any chance at all to live, because otherwise we'd be condemning someone ELSE to death.

... "I have a right to reply to your opinion" is being applied on both sides of that "double standard." If your opinion is misogynist scumbaggery, we have the right to say so. I'm confused as to why you think that is any different from you calling out feminism on its "bullshit."

You, maybe. 90% of Waylon's posts seem to be on Jezebel, insulting women. He's here whenever an article involves the word "Rape" to discuss how women are irrational and hateful.

Your lynching example is definitely a good parallel. >.>

The distinction, here, is that these men have never experienced what women, people of color, and, in general, the socially disadvantaged in our society go through every day, and as such, it really is very often invisible to them.

I ALMOST agree with your first sentence. BUT.

Let's change that. You and me and all of us. Let's start joking about crimes against men, and how "nobody would ever want to punch THAT guy in the face, because who would want to touch him?"!

... Yes?

I'm gonna be honest, here: I'm not sure I trust the vast majority of modern comedians enough to let them try their hand at it.

You felt bad for upsetting HIM. And you had no problem saying that you wanted her, a person you'd never met, to fall down a flight of stairs.

How the fuck have you not been banned for trolling yet?

Well, Time Ladies.

Godhood.

Perhaps the same could be said of all Esquire writers!