3 ms·

You are simply changing your argument every time to avoid having to answer why you are defending the site which has clearly misleading articles. If you don't t

by Latty 10y ago

You are simply changing your argument every time to avoid having to answer why you are defending the site which has clearly misleading articles. If you don't think teaching children about feminism is wrong, and you don't think all feminism is bad, how can you possibly defend that? I'm simply trying to make your argument make sense, not putting words in your mouth. You are denying everything while making the assertion I'm wrong to say that site is attempting to create a fear of feminism. You are refusing to explain why you think their content is reasonable, I'm trying to work out why that is.

Chris2048 10y ago
> You are simply changing your argument No I'm not; or quote me on it. > If you don't think teaching children about feminism is wrong I've been specific. even in the last post, I say I re-iterate that I don't believe there is singular feminism, and here you are using 'feminism' unqualified. Respond to the things I've said above, maybe quote them, and I can respond; you keep asking me to respond to your own summaries. > You are denying everything if by 'everything' you mean the specific, broadly applied claims you've made; and by 'denying' you mean ask for qualification, then yes. > making the assertion I'm wrong to say that site is attempting to create a fear of feminism I've said why I think it is wrong. > You are refusing to explain why you think their content is reasonable No, I've explained. misrepresentation, and focus are different.
- Latty 10y ago
  > I've been specific. even in the last post, I say I re-iterate that I don't believe there is singular feminism, and here you are using 'feminism' unqualified. Respond to the things I've said above, maybe quote them, and I can respond; you keep asking me to respond to your own summaries. Because the author of the post doesn't specify! She talks about teaching her child about feminism, and you assume that is somehow bad. > I've said why I think it is wrong. No, you have not. You talked around it disputing definitions. Again, you are claiming you've been specific, but you are not. Yes, obviously feminism, like most things, means different things to different people - that doesn't somehow make rejecting it generally (which is the only way you have even hinted at the artcile not being a hit piece, even if you later refute the idea) reasonable. > No, I've explained. misrepresentation, and focus are different. That article is misleading, it misrepresents the article it is talking about - that's not focus.

by Latty 10y ago

Chris2048 10y ago

> You are simply changing your argument No I'm not; or quote me on it. > If you don't think teaching children about feminism is wrong I've been specific. even in the last post, I say I re-iterate that I don't believe there is singular feminism, and here you are using 'feminism' unqualified. Respond to the things I've said above, maybe quote them, and I can respond; you keep asking me to respond to your own summaries. > You are denying everything if by 'everything' you mean the specific, broadly applied claims you've made; and by 'denying' you mean ask for qualification, then yes. > making the assertion I'm wrong to say that site is attempting to create a fear of feminism I've said why I think it is wrong. > You are refusing to explain why you think their content is reasonable No, I've explained. misrepresentation, and focus are different.

Latty 10y ago
> I've been specific. even in the last post, I say I re-iterate that I don't believe there is singular feminism, and here you are using 'feminism' unqualified. Respond to the things I've said above, maybe quote them, and I can respond; you keep asking me to respond to your own summaries. Because the author of the post doesn't specify! She talks about teaching her child about feminism, and you assume that is somehow bad. > I've said why I think it is wrong. No, you have not. You talked around it disputing definitions. Again, you are claiming you've been specific, but you are not. Yes, obviously feminism, like most things, means different things to different people - that doesn't somehow make rejecting it generally (which is the only way you have even hinted at the artcile not being a hit piece, even if you later refute the idea) reasonable. > No, I've explained. misrepresentation, and focus are different. That article is misleading, it misrepresents the article it is talking about - that's not focus.