5 ms·

Your post is essentially a giant attempt to redefine things until you are right. Anything good feminism does isn't really feminism. Anything bad anyone does is

by Latty 10y ago

Your post is essentially a giant attempt to redefine things until you are right. Anything good feminism does isn't really feminism. Anything bad anyone does is. Talking about feminism is therefore bad because it's bad. Not to mention the circular logic - feminism is bad because she's written an article about encouraging her kids to be feminists which is bad because feminism is bad. You are picking out little bits of my post and arguing against them, but ignoring the actual points I made. I'm not going to argue back on each little point because it's irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make - just noise leading off. I made a post saying the site was bad because it is portraying feminism incorrectly - this article, and moreso the article linked are designed to make men feel persecuted by extremists feminists when that doesn't reflect the situation. You argue that the article/site are reasonable, because feminism is now largely an extremist movement now, and it is anti-men enough to be a problem, not simply pro-women. That, I argue, is complete rubbish. Discrimination against women still happens. The article I linked is not anti-man at all, and your arguments that it is don't hold water, and are essentially circular reasoning and 'that's how I see it'. Please, don't dissect my post and cherry-pick bits to strawman. Stay on topic to the core point.

Chris2048 10y ago
> giant attempt to redefine things until you are right. That would be the no true scotsman I guess, but actually you invoked this with your "crazy" feminism. I'm the one that said there isn't really any such thing as a singular feminism. > Not to mention the circular logic No, the circular logic is in your poor interpretation. > which is bad because feminism is bad. This is a consistent argument, about which I say more. It's only circular in the strict way you stated it, which is a purposeful misrepresentation in order to portray it as circular. > ignoring the actual points I made which are the important ones I ignored? You say a lot that doesn't follow strictly from the points I made, and don't expand on them. If I responded to everything you write I'd be doing a lot of the work; for example, you throw out a load of ungrounded accusations, which I generally ignore. > made a post saying the site was bad because it is portraying feminism incorrectly > Stay on topic to the core point. If you want the thread to stay on topic, then stay on topic yourself. I've generally just responded. > You argue that the article/site are reasonable, because feminism is now largely an extremist movement now, and it is anti-men enough to be a problem, not simply pro-women. Some feminism. And if you can't see the distinction, then probably your feminism. > Discrimination against women still happens This is a low bar. What does it mean? I've stated enough times a need for specific standards for what constitutes "unequal", so what exactly do you mean by this? > cherry-pick bits to strawman I can only "cherry-pick to strawman" if I misrepresent your arguments (as a strawman), which did I misrepresent?
- Latty 10y ago
  > That would be the no true scotsman I guess, but actually you invoked this with your "crazy" feminism. I'm the one that said there isn't really any such thing as a singular feminism. And yet you are willing to say anyone teaching what they call feminism to their child is doing wrong because of it. > This is a consistent argument, about which I say more. It's only circular in the strict way you stated it, which is a purposeful misrepresentation in order to portray it as circular. Then why is feminism bad?
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    > And yet you are No, try reading what I've written (multiple times now). > Then why is feminism bad? certain forms are bad, for whatever makes them bad. At this point, I'm not sure you know the difference between a generalization and an absolute statement.
    - Latty 10y ago
      Then how can you possibly defend that site, which is clearly misrepresenting a feminist with a reasonable viewpoint?
      - Chris2048 10y ago
        If there's a misrepresentation going on, that's one thing, But that the viewpoint here is 'reasonable' is your opinion, not fact.
        Latty 10y ago
        And if I say 'slavery is wrong' - that's an opinion. I'm going to go ahead and call someone reasonable when they pen an anti-slavery piece. You disagree with me about the viewpoint being reasonable - sure. I think you are horribly wrong. The viewpoint makes sense, and I have explained why I think that. She is explaining her struggle in dealing with explaining feminism and dealing with sexism to her future son, given she was never a young boy and doesn't know it. You haven't explained how you got to that being unreasonable except implying (but then denying) you think feminism is inherently bad.

by Latty 10y ago

Chris2048 10y ago

> giant attempt to redefine things until you are right. That would be the no true scotsman I guess, but actually you invoked this with your "crazy" feminism. I'm the one that said there isn't really any such thing as a singular feminism. > Not to mention the circular logic No, the circular logic is in your poor interpretation. > which is bad because feminism is bad. This is a consistent argument, about which I say more. It's only circular in the strict way you stated it, which is a purposeful misrepresentation in order to portray it as circular. > ignoring the actual points I made which are the important ones I ignored? You say a lot that doesn't follow strictly from the points I made, and don't expand on them. If I responded to everything you write I'd be doing a lot of the work; for example, you throw out a load of ungrounded accusations, which I generally ignore. > made a post saying the site was bad because it is portraying feminism incorrectly > Stay on topic to the core point. If you want the thread to stay on topic, then stay on topic yourself. I've generally just responded. > You argue that the article/site are reasonable, because feminism is now largely an extremist movement now, and it is anti-men enough to be a problem, not simply pro-women. Some feminism. And if you can't see the distinction, then probably your feminism. > Discrimination against women still happens This is a low bar. What does it mean? I've stated enough times a need for specific standards for what constitutes "unequal", so what exactly do you mean by this? > cherry-pick bits to strawman I can only "cherry-pick to strawman" if I misrepresent your arguments (as a strawman), which did I misrepresent?

Latty 10y ago
> That would be the no true scotsman I guess, but actually you invoked this with your "crazy" feminism. I'm the one that said there isn't really any such thing as a singular feminism. And yet you are willing to say anyone teaching what they call feminism to their child is doing wrong because of it. > This is a consistent argument, about which I say more. It's only circular in the strict way you stated it, which is a purposeful misrepresentation in order to portray it as circular. Then why is feminism bad?
- Chris2048 10y ago
  > And yet you are No, try reading what I've written (multiple times now). > Then why is feminism bad? certain forms are bad, for whatever makes them bad. At this point, I'm not sure you know the difference between a generalization and an absolute statement.
  - Latty 10y ago
    Then how can you possibly defend that site, which is clearly misrepresenting a feminist with a reasonable viewpoint?
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      If there's a misrepresentation going on, that's one thing, But that the viewpoint here is 'reasonable' is your opinion, not fact.
      - Latty 10y ago
        And if I say 'slavery is wrong' - that's an opinion. I'm going to go ahead and call someone reasonable when they pen an anti-slavery piece. You disagree with me about the viewpoint being reasonable - sure. I think you are horribly wrong. The viewpoint makes sense, and I have explained why I think that. She is explaining her struggle in dealing with explaining feminism and dealing with sexism to her future son, given she was never a young boy and doesn't know it. You haven't explained how you got to that being unreasonable except implying (but then denying) you think feminism is inherently bad.