Differing reactions to men & women getting abused

Status
Not open for further replies.
"I'm not an MRA, but, guys, clearly feminism has gone too far. I'm not like those other feminists. I'm feminist-lite. Like Bud Lite! Mm-mm, good! Also, for some reason I think feminists hate STEM. Man, those ladies are crazy, huh? Maybe they should go back to the kitchen! Hahaha, just kidding! No, seriously though."

Less good post!
 
"I'm not an MRA, but, guys, clearly feminism has gone too far. I'm not like those other feminists. I'm feminist-lite. Like Bud Lite! Mm-mm, good! Also, for some reason I think feminists hate STEM. Man, those ladies are crazy, huh? Maybe they should go back to the kitchen! Hahaha, just kidding! No, seriously though."

You could at least quote me instead of Narz, if you want to mock me and create a strawman:lol:

Edit: I also find it very disturbing that criticizing any piece of feminism instantly gets you ad hominem-ed as a misogynist. You're with us or you're practically evil incarnate! I guess Metatron hit the nail on the head with the Christianity/original sin comparison.
 
"I don't know what original sin is, but I sure do like appearing learned and erudite. Post Quick Reply? Yes, please!"
 
Edit: I also find it very disturbing that criticizing any piece of feminism instantly gets you ad hominem-ed as a misogynist.
The term "ad hominen" doesn't mean "untrue". It simply means a personal criticism that is besides the point. So what you're saying here, taken literally, is "yes, I hate women, obviously, but that shouldn't be the issue".

So I think perhaps that you might want to reconsider the phrasing of your complaint.
 
Aren't you, in turn, taking "criticizing feminism" to mean "hating women", Mr Fish? Or are you just translating misogynist?

I'm lost!!

What's this thread about, again?
 
Aren't you, in turn, taking "criticizing feminism" to mean "hating women", Mr Fish? Or are you just translating misogynist?
The latter.

An ad hominem is a fallacy in which the speaker makes irrelevant attacks upon the character of the opponent rather than presenting an argument. But NC-1701 seems to be using it to mean attacks upon the character of the opponent which are untrue. So if we read him literally, for the proper rather than the intended meaning of "ad hominem", he's not contesting what he sees as an accusation of misogyny (indeed, he's volunteering the term), he's merely denying that it's relevant to the topic.

I thought it might be worth pointing out for future reference.
 
I really need to learn that typing anything that takes actual effort to reply to is a waste of time in CFC OT and stop wasting my time.

Let's face it, CFC OT is one big waste of time.

But what post are you referring to? Which post of yours did you expect a reply to and didn't get?

Because I'm not proud. I'll literally reply to anything at all. Even if it's not addressed to me.

(I don't guarantee to make any sense, though.)
 
An ad hominem is a fallacy in which the speaker makes irrelevant attacks upon the character of the opponent rather than presenting an argument. But NC-1701 seems to be using it to mean attacks upon the character of the opponent which are untrue.
Funny coincidence because I myself wanted to use ad hominem in that manner recently but had the good sense to first wikipedia it, seems to be one of those terms which is getting changed/distorted by use.
I really need to learn that typing anything that takes actual effort to reply to is a waste of time in CFC OT and stop wasting my time.
That is always frustrating, but it is not a rule :)
 
Science, technology, Engineering...... Mathematics?

Basically male dominated disciplines full of a particular type of stupid smartness. They're all really intelligent and good at one thing but the young inexperienced ones in particular incorrectly believe that being good at this one thing makes them good at everything. Including sharing opinions about women and other races.
 
Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths.

edit: Well, blow me down. That was a waste of time on my part. Now I just look stupid.
 
"I'm not an MRA, but, guys, clearly feminism has gone too far. I'm not like those other feminists. I'm feminist-lite. Like Bud Lite! Mm-mm, good! Also, for some reason I think feminists hate STEM. Man, those ladies are crazy, huh? Maybe they should go back to the kitchen! Hahaha, just kidding! No, seriously though."

Maybe if you punch him more he'll start looking at things your way.

I really need to learn that typing anything that takes actual effort to reply to is a waste of time in CFC OT and stop wasting my time.

No don't think that! Don't let a few spoiled eggs ruin the rest of the meal!

The OT is a great place for discussion, and just because there are a few people who have terrible discussion skills does not mean the rest of us do as well. It takes a little time to figure out which topics are toxic, but once you do, you'll realize there is plenty reason to put effort into posts. There are dozens of other people here who are willing to actually engage you.
 
The term "ad hominen" doesn't mean "untrue". It simply means a personal criticism that is besides the point. So what you're saying here, taken literally, is "yes, I hate women, obviously, but that shouldn't be the issue".

So I think perhaps that you might want to reconsider the phrasing of your complaint.

So I checked out wikipedia and it seems that are correct:goodjob:

Wikipedia said:
Mere verbal abuse in the absence of an argument, however, is not ad hominem nor any kind of logical fallacy.[8]
 
Irony and violence are basically the same thing, I agree.

Why do you demand others read your posts and arguments in a very nuanced way when you don't afford them the same courtesy? You're smart enough to know that Joe wasn't literally suggesting Crezth punch people.
 
Should men leave the irony to the.....?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom