Sexism is still going strong

Post Reply New Topic

This dick measuring over hardships one has faced reminds me of the silly arguments I used to encounter from right wingers at university about poverty- because third world poverty is worse, the logic goes, people in the UK who have to choose between heating and food are just soft and complaining about nothing- which is a bit like saying that someone you punched in the face has no right to complain because you broke another guy's leg.

Why do people like you force me to give details? Leading with yet another ill thought out insult are you? Its 141 via a supervised test thank you.

That's despite my background, good aren't I? Imagine if i didnt start life with so many set backs, i could be three times rather than just twice as intelligent as you.

I don't care about yours, please don't tell me.


My points were made but people like you bring in the insults because you can't make any good points and the subject drifts. That a good enough point to make about your point?

how about another point to be made about your post, everything you've said to me so far has been an insult. or did you completely forget that your monty python comedy for pretentious people was what made me address you in the first place?


Pissing contest that u can't stop yourself getting involved in? Love the Latin, you so clever. Pretentious prat. Im not changing the subject, I only responded to others changing the subject, as you're doing right now.

the subject reached that point because i was accused of having no life experience, which i clearly have in abundance.

I'd win. Get used to it.



Nope, u wouldn't have any help to offer anyway. I don't ask for advice because I don't need any. My problem is one of not wanting any friends, it's not that I can't make them, and as such there's nothing to advise about.


Yawn, u still talking? I'm not an extremist. I have a healthy disrespect for everyone. I have nothing in particular against females, and if u paid attention to the specifics you'd know that. I just don't like the people that haven't earned my respect. Like you. Stick your advise up your arse and stop wasting my time with your saddo ganging up on me, its pathetic . I would happily stand around irl with all your mates egging you on, id destroy you intellectually and then i'd beat the s**t out of you afterwards.

hate to say it, but you're a poor replacement for LKL. Her arguments, despite her only arguing for arguing sake in some ways, were actually quite informative, and she actually has changed my mind in some subtle ways. Yours have not.

@Woodster, a couple of technical points:
"ad hominem" is a common term used in arguments, not pretentious or anything fancy; it means, roughly, calling your opponent a booger head rather than addressing their points. It can take many forms, but basically it's any tactic used to discredit your opponent as a person, rather than attacking your opponent's arguments.
"You're a feminist, so I'm not going to listen to you."
"You're middle-class, so I'm not going to listen to you."
"You're pretentious/elitist/less under-privileged than me, so I'm not going to listen to you."
"Your dick is smaller than mine, so I'm not going to listen to you."
etc.
Using latin terms for logical fallacies is not generally pretentious; it's a shorthand way of describing why a certain statement by someone is illogical or irrelevant. It can be used as a kind of red herring (another type of fallacy) wherein either someone with a logic 101 class under his belt starts citing fallacies left and right without real regard to whether, or how well, they apply, or someone with a decent knowledge of fallacies, but impure motives, lists fallacies that sound like they might apply, but don't really. That can usually be detected when every single argument consists of nothing but 'that's fallacies x, y, and z.'
Sometimes ad hominem just a rhetorical trick to make you mad (and therefore illogical), and accompanies actual arguments, but often it's in place of arguments, or in place of solid arguments, and that's when it becomes a logical fallacy.
"cherry-picking" is selecting one or two sentences out of an entire treatise to either selectively respond to, or selectively cite, in order to either pretend that your opponent's argument is weaker than it is, or to pretend that a source says something different overall than what it actually said.
The polar opposite of cherry-picking is fisking, which is what I have been doing; to fisk is to take apart an argument sentence by sentence, methodically destroying the whole thing point by point.

QFT
The sexist version of this is, 'what are you complaining about? Women in Africa are having their genitals cut off, so stop whining.'

1: Let me assure you that any compulsion stems from your own suppressed feelings of inadequacy.



2: See previous response.



3: Claims without evidence, yadda yadda. Also, see '1:'



4: Because your fragile little ego can't take it?

Rest assured, mine is bigger.



5: For clarification, my contribution to this thread has included (in my opinion) an objective analysis of the data which informed the article discussed in the original post. Your contribution has been to make generalised attacks on women, to attempt to derail the discussion and create a narrative that supports your persecution complex.



6: Everything you have posted is an insult to the concept of open discourse.



7:



8: How dare I comment on a public forum! Your self-aggrandising, misogynistic pity-train is above reproach, right?

If I'm such "aboringcunt" (because this is at least a million times funnier than anything John Cleese has said or done), why are you so compelled to respond? Don't bother answering, just see '1:'.



9: It's as if you're channelling Oscar Wilde. How do you come up with this stuff?



10: I addressed this already. See '5:'.



11: Clearly you have no understanding of cause and effect. This began with "You have no idea whats it's like to live in a world where there are no excuses allowed. Women can always slope off and make an excuse".



12: See '1:'



13: I genuinely feel pity for you now. Not because you don't have any friends, and not because of your delusional belief that your life has been more challenging than yet far superior to everybody else's. Rather it is the ill-conceived delusion of grandeur that informs your world view, traps your psyche in a self-perpetuating web of persecution and precludes any possibility that you might improve or grow as a human being that inspires both my sympathy and my disdain.



14: Sweet, sweet irony thy name is woodster.



15: I'll refer everyone to the first post you made in this thread, which includes such sentiments as "Females working is just a power play.", and invite people to draw their own conclusions.



16: Your respect is neither meaningful nor sought after by anyone on these boards.



17: See points '1:', '4:', '5:' and '13:'

If you don't want to be hit by lightning, climb down off your pedestal.



18: Wherein woodster provides conclusive proof of his impotence in his lifelong struggle vs personal demons.

The sad reality is that woodster embodies the reasons that feminism exists in its current form, and is partly responsible for the generalisations that stem from the reactionary views of modern day feminists. People (of both genders) like myself end up being tarred with the same brush, regardless of our stance on gender diversification. I will never so much as consider aligning myself with feminism, but any action they propose which will actually rid the world of this special brand of ignorance will receive my full support.

Thread has degenerated into name calling, so it has been locked.