3 ms·

> 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

by 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.
      - Chris2048 10y ago
        slavery is not an ideology, so it's not a good analogy. > implying (but then denying) you think feminism is inherently bad. Then maybe your interpretation is wrong. It seems you ignore specific things I write, and just respond to you own assumptions.
        Latty 10y ago
        Descriminating against women isn't an ideology - but feminism is. Slavery isn't an ideology, but anti-slavery is. Again, you are trying to counter the definitions of what I'm saying, not the actual idea I'm talking about. Your point was that just because it's my opinion, I can't expect others to share that opinion. My point is that's bullshit - I can expect people to share my opinion that killing is wrong, say. I expect people to share my opinion that descrimination against women is wrong. Trying to nit-pick my analogy is irrelevant and shows you have no real argument against my point, you just want to continue the argument and make it sound like you are 'scoring points' by 'proving me wrong'. You deny my interpretation of the article, but give no reason for that. I have tried to work it out (the only way I can make sense of your position is if you think feminism is inherently bad) - and you claim that's not it. If you have a real reason then tell me. Why is my interpretation wrong? How does the other article's read make any sense after reading the original article?
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        > Descriminating against women isn't an ideology Discrimination against women is an element of many ideologies.
        Chris2048 10y ago
        > Slavery isn't an ideology, but anti-slavery is No it isn't. An ideology is a specific thing. belief in god is common among (specific) religions, but theism isn't a religion > Descriminating against women isn't an ideology - but feminism is Is the implication that feminism == anti-(female)-discrimination? sounds a lot like argument by dictionary definition. If this is what feminism is, or "discrimination" was strictly, and uncontroversially defined; a lot less would be able to bear that label. > Your point was that just because it's my opinion, I can't expect others to share that opinion This is correct, To make others share that opinion you need to convince them > My point is that's bullshit - I can expect people to share my opinion that killing is wrong, say And if you argued that, and people are convinced, then they would share your opinion. But there would be a lot of assumptions that are also your opinion that you would need to convince them of along the way - that "feminism" is the same as some definition of discrimination/unfairness, say. > Trying to nit-pick my analogy is irrelevant It's not a "nit", you analogy is totally misapplied. It only applied correctly according to a personal, unshared definition of "feminism", so what use is it if it depends upon another assumption? You must first convince someone of the assumption, before they'll accept another premise based on it. > you just want to continue the argument and make it sound like you are 'scoring points' by 'proving me wrong'. I doubt anyone but us two are still reading at this point. And I get less and less out of this. The more it continues, the more you throw out vague claims, premises and accusations, without further clarification of previous points; the accusation that I am motivated by 'point-scoring' for example, without any illustrative examples, or explanation. > You deny my interpretation of the article, but give no reason for that The author assumes a demon-haunted world. At the beginning of this thread we discussed that, and it seems we disagree on the facts. That's why. That said, it's not useful to assume my position in the way you describe, or at least be more diligent in doing so: "feminism is inherently bad" is a position directly contradicted by things I've said.

by Latty 10y ago

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.
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      slavery is not an ideology, so it's not a good analogy. > implying (but then denying) you think feminism is inherently bad. Then maybe your interpretation is wrong. It seems you ignore specific things I write, and just respond to you own assumptions.
      - Latty 10y ago
        Descriminating against women isn't an ideology - but feminism is. Slavery isn't an ideology, but anti-slavery is. Again, you are trying to counter the definitions of what I'm saying, not the actual idea I'm talking about. Your point was that just because it's my opinion, I can't expect others to share that opinion. My point is that's bullshit - I can expect people to share my opinion that killing is wrong, say. I expect people to share my opinion that descrimination against women is wrong. Trying to nit-pick my analogy is irrelevant and shows you have no real argument against my point, you just want to continue the argument and make it sound like you are 'scoring points' by 'proving me wrong'. You deny my interpretation of the article, but give no reason for that. I have tried to work it out (the only way I can make sense of your position is if you think feminism is inherently bad) - and you claim that's not it. If you have a real reason then tell me. Why is my interpretation wrong? How does the other article's read make any sense after reading the original article?
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        > Descriminating against women isn't an ideology Discrimination against women is an element of many ideologies.
        Chris2048 10y ago
        > Slavery isn't an ideology, but anti-slavery is No it isn't. An ideology is a specific thing. belief in god is common among (specific) religions, but theism isn't a religion > Descriminating against women isn't an ideology - but feminism is Is the implication that feminism == anti-(female)-discrimination? sounds a lot like argument by dictionary definition. If this is what feminism is, or "discrimination" was strictly, and uncontroversially defined; a lot less would be able to bear that label. > Your point was that just because it's my opinion, I can't expect others to share that opinion This is correct, To make others share that opinion you need to convince them > My point is that's bullshit - I can expect people to share my opinion that killing is wrong, say And if you argued that, and people are convinced, then they would share your opinion. But there would be a lot of assumptions that are also your opinion that you would need to convince them of along the way - that "feminism" is the same as some definition of discrimination/unfairness, say. > Trying to nit-pick my analogy is irrelevant It's not a "nit", you analogy is totally misapplied. It only applied correctly according to a personal, unshared definition of "feminism", so what use is it if it depends upon another assumption? You must first convince someone of the assumption, before they'll accept another premise based on it. > you just want to continue the argument and make it sound like you are 'scoring points' by 'proving me wrong'. I doubt anyone but us two are still reading at this point. And I get less and less out of this. The more it continues, the more you throw out vague claims, premises and accusations, without further clarification of previous points; the accusation that I am motivated by 'point-scoring' for example, without any illustrative examples, or explanation. > You deny my interpretation of the article, but give no reason for that The author assumes a demon-haunted world. At the beginning of this thread we discussed that, and it seems we disagree on the facts. That's why. That said, it's not useful to assume my position in the way you describe, or at least be more diligent in doing so: "feminism is inherently bad" is a position directly contradicted by things I've said.