21 May 2014, 6:37 pm
21 May 2014, 8:02 pm
Who_Am_I wrote:
AspergianMutantt wrote:
Oh get over it already, in our modern society men are considered expendable and women an asset. just look at our prisons there is like 26 females to 200 men, and its not that woman are any better or worse then men, they just tend to slap them on the wrists and let them go with the excuse that their biological clocks are ticking. society wants those babies, their future voters and tax payers. there is no such thing as equality between the sex's, never was and there never will be.
Men are also needed to make babies. Did you fail primary school biology?
Oh, that's a little harsh
I'm pretty sure that reproductive bottlenecks are covered in primary school also. And since you're qualified to flunk somebody over the interwebs, I don't need to explain to you how that's relevant 
21 May 2014, 8:38 pm
21 May 2014, 8:55 pm
21 May 2014, 10:23 pm
NobodyKnows wrote:
Who_Am_I wrote:
AspergianMutantt wrote:
Oh get over it already, in our modern society men are considered expendable and women an asset. just look at our prisons there is like 26 females to 200 men, and its not that woman are any better or worse then men, they just tend to slap them on the wrists and let them go with the excuse that their biological clocks are ticking. society wants those babies, their future voters and tax payers. there is no such thing as equality between the sex's, never was and there never will be.
Men are also needed to make babies. Did you fail primary school biology?
Oh, that's a little harsh
I'm pretty sure that reproductive bottlenecks are covered in primary school also. And since you're qualified to flunk somebody over the interwebs, I don't need to explain to you how that's relevant Not in my primary school. I looked it up, and I still am not seeing how it equates to "women can make babies all on their very own, therefore kill all men".
And I didn't flunk him over the internet, I ASKED if he'd failed.
21 May 2014, 11:33 pm
21 May 2014, 11:47 pm
21 May 2014, 11:50 pm
22 May 2014, 12:23 am
22 May 2014, 12:57 am
22 May 2014, 1:59 am
*sigh*
Well, since you suck at rage quitting nearly as much as you do at arguing, I suppose I'll have to go through this, ughh.
Nights_Like_These wrote:
Did I say you said they should shut up? Although to be fair, if you're going to tell someone that the things they are saying are tiresome you might as well tell them to shut up too.
Yes, you did, by stating "why shouldn't they preach their worldview?", you implied that I had said they should not, which I did not in fact say. You continue the mischaracterization here, as you cannot seem to separate my critique, that feminism promotes it's message in a way that's counter-productive, from a call for feminists to shut up, which I've never made. Basically, you're lying about me, which you continue to do throughout this post, as I'll make increasingly clear.
Nights_Like_These wrote:
Is it dogma to acknowledge that we can't understand where someone with a different life experience is coming from and therefore maybe we shouldn't just automatically dismiss everything they say?
Would it kill you to stick to what I actually say instead of putting words in my mouth? I was clearly referring to the unquestioning belief and rigidly enforced conformity of ideas often found in current feminism, not dismissing anything out of hand, as much as it would be easier for you if I had.
Nights_Like_These wrote:
I would have to disagree with this. The things that you say they are "blathering on about" are a problem because people refuse to acknowledge them.
That's called begging the question, where you assume facts not in evidence; you haven't even attempted to explain how any of these things are problems, let alone important ones, you've simply stated that it is so and that the real problem is people not acknowledging this unproven thesis. Really, you're proving my point about dogma here, as well as my previous points about your lack of argumentation and critical thinking skills.
Nights_Like_These wrote:
Apparently not, but this is indeed NOT the first time we've interacted, and no I'm not going to go look for the thread so I can link it for you to refresh your memory because to be honest I'd rather not rehash that conversation, which you've clearly forgotten about (or are pretending to have forgotten about to prop yourself up a bit--either way I don't really care lol). Where exactly did I call you a name? I'm speaking only of observations I've made while conversing with you once before and while witnessing other comments you've made on other threads I happened to be reading. You have a rather dismissive way of dealing with other people I've noticed. And no, I'm not going to go looking for those threads either because you will just disagree with my observations as you did the first time I made them known, so there is no point, and to be honest I don't really like conversing with you so I'd hate to start a new conversation about an old one. (edit: I understand 'rational'. You don't understand 'subjectivity'. You also don't seem to understand how not to insult people. It's not so "oddly personal" when you make it personal. This is the last time I'm going to even be baited by anything you have to say because I find you to be a singularly unpleasant person, and I've lost all interest in anything you have to say and I have trouble trying to decide if you actually believe the things you say or if you are just trying to be a jerk and an intellectual bully) (<--Now you can accuse of me of name-calling, but I call it like I see it, you can report me if you so wish).
I believe the technical term for someone who makes these kind of personal assertions and refuses to back them up is 'chickenshit', and I further believe you're perfectly fulfilling the criteria right now, wanting to make accusations that you can't back prove but refusing to acknowledge that. What possible gain could I receive from pretending not to remember you? Yours were just another serious of dumb arguments in a thread full of them, and if I remembered the details of every stupid thing said to me in PPR, I'd quickly run out of space in my brain. Further, I'm the one who qualifies every statement of my opinion with 'I think', 'I feel', 'in my opinion', etc, only using more definitive language when speaking of facts, which you'd know if you bothered to actually read what I write instead of blindly lashing out. Finally, for finding me so unpleasant to deal with, you certainly go out of your way to interact with me, which makes me wonder what exactly you think you're doing here.
Nights_Like_These wrote:
Of course not, but that doesn't mean their opinion is wrong. Is your opinion infallible?
I didn't say my opinion was infallible, nor am I the one calling for unquestioning acceptance of a particular world view. That would be you.
Nights_Like_These wrote:
I'm not really sure what to say about this that I haven't already said, other than, "Congratulations on having an opinion! What would we do without you!" I'd give you a cookie or something, but there doesn't seem to be an emoticon for that on WP, so I guess I'll just use this one instead because it worked so well for you and it pretty much sums up how I feel about your opinion: 
And now I will leave the Politics, Philosophy, and Religion section of WP to you and your superior intellect and vulcan logic because it's just so vast that there's no room for empathy, so it's silly of me to hope that you might one day employ it.
And now I will leave the Politics, Philosophy, and Religion section of WP to you and your superior intellect and vulcan logic because it's just so vast that there's no room for empathy, so it's silly of me to hope that you might one day employ it.
Wow, I just got called 'Mr Spock' as an insult on an Autism site, by someone who appears to know what logic is from having it described to them second hand...
Just for fun, I'm going to compare this post and the one that proceeded it to Larry Correia's Internet Arguing Checklist, as it's uncanny how accurately it predicted this exchange. The checklist consists of 8 steps,
Skim until Offended
Disqualify that Opinion
Attack, Attack, Attack
Disregard Inconvenient facts
Make Sh*t Up
Resort to Moral Equivalency
Concern Trolling
When all else fails, Racism!
and these posts managed to hit most of them.
Let's see,
Skim Until Offended, yep; consistent outrage without ever actually understanding what I was saying, check.
Disqualify That Opinion; got that in the first one, since as a man I'm apparently unqualified to hold an opinion on feminism.
Attack, Attack, Attack; well, the later half of the second post was almost entirely a personal attack on me, so check.
Disregard Inconvenient Facts; I don't think there was a single fact in any of these posts, so yeah.
Make Sh*t Up; oh yeah, so many words put in my mouth that it's a wonder I didn't choke.
Resort to Moral Equivalency; third paragraph of the second post, I even called it out at the time.
Concern Trolling, not so much, more just straight trolling.
Racism! Substitute sexism, and we're there.
Wow, that whole thing was so generic that there's actually a cookie cutter template that nails it almost exactly.
22 May 2014, 2:51 am
Dox47 wrote:
*sigh*
Well, since you suck at rage quitting nearly as much as you do at arguing, I suppose I'll have to go through this, ughh.
Yes, you did, by stating "why shouldn't they preach their worldview?", you implied that I had said they should not, which I did not in fact say. You continue the mischaracterization here, as you cannot seem to separate my critique, that feminism promotes it's message in a way that's counter-productive, from a call for feminists to shut up, which I've never made. Basically, you're lying about me, which you continue to do throughout this post, as I'll make increasingly clear.
Would it kill you to stick to what I actually say instead of putting words in my mouth? I was clearly referring to the unquestioning belief and rigidly enforced conformity of ideas often found in current feminism, not dismissing anything out of hand, as much as it would be easier for you if I had.
That's called begging the question, where you assume facts not in evidence; you haven't even attempted to explain how any of these things are problems, let alone important ones, you've simply stated that it is so and that the real problem is people not acknowledging this unproven thesis. Really, you're proving my point about dogma here, as well as my previous points about your lack of argumentation and critical thinking skills.
I believe the technical term for someone who makes these kind of personal assertions and refuses to back them up is 'chickenshit', and I further believe you're perfectly fulfilling the criteria right now, wanting to make accusations that you can't back prove but refusing to acknowledge that. What possible gain could I receive from pretending not to remember you? Yours were just another serious of dumb arguments in a thread full of them, and if I remembered the details of every stupid thing said to me in PPR, I'd quickly run out of space in my brain. Further, I'm the one who qualifies every statement of my opinion with 'I think', 'I feel', 'in my opinion', etc, only using more definitive language when speaking of facts, which you'd know if you bothered to actually read what I write instead of blindly lashing out. Finally, for finding me so unpleasant to deal with, you certainly go out of your way to interact with me, which makes me wonder what exactly you think you're doing here.
I didn't say my opinion was infallible, nor am I the one calling for unquestioning acceptance of a particular world view. That would be you.
Wow, I just got called 'Mr Spock' as an insult on an Autism site, by someone who appears to know what logic is from having it described to them second hand...
Just for fun, I'm going to compare this post and the one that proceeded it to Larry Correia's Internet Arguing Checklist, as it's uncanny how accurately it predicted this exchange. The checklist consists of 8 steps,
Skim until Offended
Disqualify that Opinion
Attack, Attack, Attack
Disregard Inconvenient facts
Make Sh*t Up
Resort to Moral Equivalency
Concern Trolling
When all else fails, Racism!
and these posts managed to hit most of them.
Let's see,
Skim Until Offended, yep; consistent outrage without ever actually understanding what I was saying, check.
Disqualify That Opinion; got that in the first one, since as a man I'm apparently unqualified to hold an opinion on feminism.
Attack, Attack, Attack; well, the later half of the second post was almost entirely a personal attack on me, so check.
Disregard Inconvenient Facts; I don't think there was a single fact in any of these posts, so yeah.
Make Sh*t Up; oh yeah, so many words put in my mouth that it's a wonder I didn't choke.
Resort to Moral Equivalency; third paragraph of the second post, I even called it out at the time.
Concern Trolling, not so much, more just straight trolling.
Racism! Substitute sexism, and we're there.
Wow, that whole thing was so generic that there's actually a cookie cutter template that nails it almost exactly.
Dox stop attacking people like Nights she is merely voicing her opinion which dissagrees with yours your allowing yourself to be a troll!Its not going to make things better you probably dont see the movement seriously eather at times but doesnt excuse you for trolling people who merely dissagree with you, I know I am sounding like a hypocrite right now because I used to to do the same thing but certain circumstanses haved changed and made me see things differently in ways I used to not see.
Well, since you suck at rage quitting nearly as much as you do at arguing, I suppose I'll have to go through this, ughh.
Nights_Like_These wrote:
Did I say you said they should shut up? Although to be fair, if you're going to tell someone that the things they are saying are tiresome you might as well tell them to shut up too.
Yes, you did, by stating "why shouldn't they preach their worldview?", you implied that I had said they should not, which I did not in fact say. You continue the mischaracterization here, as you cannot seem to separate my critique, that feminism promotes it's message in a way that's counter-productive, from a call for feminists to shut up, which I've never made. Basically, you're lying about me, which you continue to do throughout this post, as I'll make increasingly clear.
Nights_Like_These wrote:
Is it dogma to acknowledge that we can't understand where someone with a different life experience is coming from and therefore maybe we shouldn't just automatically dismiss everything they say?
Would it kill you to stick to what I actually say instead of putting words in my mouth? I was clearly referring to the unquestioning belief and rigidly enforced conformity of ideas often found in current feminism, not dismissing anything out of hand, as much as it would be easier for you if I had.
Nights_Like_These wrote:
I would have to disagree with this. The things that you say they are "blathering on about" are a problem because people refuse to acknowledge them.
That's called begging the question, where you assume facts not in evidence; you haven't even attempted to explain how any of these things are problems, let alone important ones, you've simply stated that it is so and that the real problem is people not acknowledging this unproven thesis. Really, you're proving my point about dogma here, as well as my previous points about your lack of argumentation and critical thinking skills.
Nights_Like_These wrote:
Apparently not, but this is indeed NOT the first time we've interacted, and no I'm not going to go look for the thread so I can link it for you to refresh your memory because to be honest I'd rather not rehash that conversation, which you've clearly forgotten about (or are pretending to have forgotten about to prop yourself up a bit--either way I don't really care lol). Where exactly did I call you a name? I'm speaking only of observations I've made while conversing with you once before and while witnessing other comments you've made on other threads I happened to be reading. You have a rather dismissive way of dealing with other people I've noticed. And no, I'm not going to go looking for those threads either because you will just disagree with my observations as you did the first time I made them known, so there is no point, and to be honest I don't really like conversing with you so I'd hate to start a new conversation about an old one. (edit: I understand 'rational'. You don't understand 'subjectivity'. You also don't seem to understand how not to insult people. It's not so "oddly personal" when you make it personal. This is the last time I'm going to even be baited by anything you have to say because I find you to be a singularly unpleasant person, and I've lost all interest in anything you have to say and I have trouble trying to decide if you actually believe the things you say or if you are just trying to be a jerk and an intellectual bully) (<--Now you can accuse of me of name-calling, but I call it like I see it, you can report me if you so wish).
I believe the technical term for someone who makes these kind of personal assertions and refuses to back them up is 'chickenshit', and I further believe you're perfectly fulfilling the criteria right now, wanting to make accusations that you can't back prove but refusing to acknowledge that. What possible gain could I receive from pretending not to remember you? Yours were just another serious of dumb arguments in a thread full of them, and if I remembered the details of every stupid thing said to me in PPR, I'd quickly run out of space in my brain. Further, I'm the one who qualifies every statement of my opinion with 'I think', 'I feel', 'in my opinion', etc, only using more definitive language when speaking of facts, which you'd know if you bothered to actually read what I write instead of blindly lashing out. Finally, for finding me so unpleasant to deal with, you certainly go out of your way to interact with me, which makes me wonder what exactly you think you're doing here.
Nights_Like_These wrote:
Of course not, but that doesn't mean their opinion is wrong. Is your opinion infallible?
I didn't say my opinion was infallible, nor am I the one calling for unquestioning acceptance of a particular world view. That would be you.
Nights_Like_These wrote:
I'm not really sure what to say about this that I haven't already said, other than, "Congratulations on having an opinion! What would we do without you!" I'd give you a cookie or something, but there doesn't seem to be an emoticon for that on WP, so I guess I'll just use this one instead because it worked so well for you and it pretty much sums up how I feel about your opinion:
And now I will leave the Politics, Philosophy, and Religion section of WP to you and your superior intellect and vulcan logic because it's just so vast that there's no room for empathy, so it's silly of me to hope that you might one day employ it.
And now I will leave the Politics, Philosophy, and Religion section of WP to you and your superior intellect and vulcan logic because it's just so vast that there's no room for empathy, so it's silly of me to hope that you might one day employ it.
Wow, I just got called 'Mr Spock' as an insult on an Autism site, by someone who appears to know what logic is from having it described to them second hand...
Just for fun, I'm going to compare this post and the one that proceeded it to Larry Correia's Internet Arguing Checklist, as it's uncanny how accurately it predicted this exchange. The checklist consists of 8 steps,
Skim until Offended
Disqualify that Opinion
Attack, Attack, Attack
Disregard Inconvenient facts
Make Sh*t Up
Resort to Moral Equivalency
Concern Trolling
When all else fails, Racism!
and these posts managed to hit most of them.
Let's see,
Skim Until Offended, yep; consistent outrage without ever actually understanding what I was saying, check.
Disqualify That Opinion; got that in the first one, since as a man I'm apparently unqualified to hold an opinion on feminism.
Attack, Attack, Attack; well, the later half of the second post was almost entirely a personal attack on me, so check.
Disregard Inconvenient Facts; I don't think there was a single fact in any of these posts, so yeah.
Make Sh*t Up; oh yeah, so many words put in my mouth that it's a wonder I didn't choke.
Resort to Moral Equivalency; third paragraph of the second post, I even called it out at the time.
Concern Trolling, not so much, more just straight trolling.
Racism! Substitute sexism, and we're there.
Wow, that whole thing was so generic that there's actually a cookie cutter template that nails it almost exactly.
22 May 2014, 3:23 am
22 May 2014, 3:55 am
22 May 2014, 4:08 am
22 May 2014, 4:31 am
