Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The End Of Men *

inferno
Posts: 10,660
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2012 11:43:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I got an interesting thing I want to share with you guys here
at DDO today. Hanna Rosin believes that the end of men is near. It has, according to her, has a lot to do with our society and the changes that have occured over the past 50 years or so. But is this the end of men as we know it.
Listen to what she is saying in this video. She is a feminists
dream come true, and a Mans worst nightmare. You can see it in her eyes, cant you. Enjoy.
inferno
Posts: 10,660
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2012 9:12:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/19/2012 11:43:43 AM, inferno wrote:
I got an interesting thing I want to share with you guys here
at DDO today. Hanna Rosin believes that the end of men is near. It has, according to her, has a lot to do with our society and the changes that have occured over the past 50 years or so. But is this the end of men as we know it.
Listen to what she is saying in this video. She is a feminists
dream come true, and a Mans worst nightmare. You can see it in her eyes, cant you. Enjoy.



Interesting topic here. But apparently DDO does not do well with gender issues.
Brain_crazy
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2012 3:28:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/24/2012 9:12:04 AM, inferno wrote:
At 10/19/2012 11:43:43 AM, inferno wrote:
I got an interesting thing I want to share with you guys here
at DDO today. Hanna Rosin believes that the end of men is near. It has, according to her, has a lot to do with our society and the changes that have occured over the past 50 years or so. But is this the end of men as we know it.
Listen to what she is saying in this video. She is a feminists
dream come true, and a Mans worst nightmare. You can see it in her eyes, cant you. Enjoy.



Interesting topic here. But apparently DDO does not do well with gender issues.

The stats in general don't support her thesis.-though certainly things are progessing positively towards a society that shows more justice and allows for more opportunity to women- As a side note I wonder how the changes that are occuring will affect the trend for women to expect men to lead in relationships, which possibily is in part due to evolutionary mechanisms. Since women undergo 8 + months of being "handicapped" it would have been especially desirable to find a mate who shows leadership or resourceful qualities. -ie. perhaps this has lead to a subconcious attraction for women towards such traits- Just a thought
inferno
Posts: 10,660
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2012 4:34:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/24/2012 3:28:07 PM, Brain_crazy wrote:
At 10/24/2012 9:12:04 AM, inferno wrote:
At 10/19/2012 11:43:43 AM, inferno wrote:
I got an interesting thing I want to share with you guys here
at DDO today. Hanna Rosin believes that the end of men is near. It has, according to her, has a lot to do with our society and the changes that have occured over the past 50 years or so. But is this the end of men as we know it.
Listen to what she is saying in this video. She is a feminists
dream come true, and a Mans worst nightmare. You can see it in her eyes, cant you. Enjoy.



Interesting topic here. But apparently DDO does not do well with gender issues.

The stats in general don't support her thesis.-though certainly things are progessing positively towards a society that shows more justice and allows for more opportunity to women- As a side note I wonder how the changes that are occuring will affect the trend for women to expect men to lead in relationships, which possibily is in part due to evolutionary mechanisms. Since women undergo 8 + months of being "handicapped" it would have been especially desirable to find a mate who shows leadership or resourceful qualities. -ie. perhaps this has lead to a subconcious attraction for women towards such traits- Just a thought

You also forgot about the equal pay, which for Women is still less than half of a dollar to the dollar. It would take Women at least another generation before they have the same amout of equal pay in the system at the rate it is today.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 8:10:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2012 11:43:43 AM, inferno wrote:
I got an interesting thing I want to share with you guys here
at DDO today. Hanna Rosin believes that the end of men is near. It has, according to her, has a lot to do with our society and the changes that have occured over the past 50 years or so. But is this the end of men as we know it.
Listen to what she is saying in this video. She is a feminists
dream come true, and a Mans worst nightmare. You can see it in her eyes, cant you. Enjoy.



Feminism has reached a stage where it's most common argument is how loud it is. It's entered a stage of cocky behavior and self-righteous yells, and it's starting to annoy younger generations. It'll destroy itself before it destroys men. In fact, its yelling and double-standards are making people move in the opposite direction.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 9:26:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/11/2014 8:10:47 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 10/19/2012 11:43:43 AM, inferno wrote:
I got an interesting thing I want to share with you guys here
at DDO today. Hanna Rosin believes that the end of men is near. It has, according to her, has a lot to do with our society and the changes that have occured over the past 50 years or so. But is this the end of men as we know it.
Listen to what she is saying in this video. She is a feminists
dream come true, and a Mans worst nightmare. You can see it in her eyes, cant you. Enjoy.



Feminism has reached a stage where it's most common argument is how loud it is. It's entered a stage of cocky behavior and self-righteous yells, and it's starting to annoy younger generations. It'll destroy itself before it destroys men. In fact, its yelling and double-standards are making people move in the opposite direction.

You mention feminism as if it's a monolith. As if there isn't headbutting between a diverse number of schools of thought from within (the debates between so-called liberal and poststructuralist feminist is extremely indicative here), as if the media representation of feminists as (generally speaking) loud man-haters is at all indicative of the movement as a whole (given yer above response I highly doubt yer too familiar with feminism in academia), and as if feminists aren't critical of other feminists (criticism by third-wave feminists of earlier feminists' supposed failure to deal with trans, queer, or non-white women's issues is an elucidating example).
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 9:41:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/11/2014 9:26:47 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/11/2014 8:10:47 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 10/19/2012 11:43:43 AM, inferno wrote:
I got an interesting thing I want to share with you guys here
at DDO today. Hanna Rosin believes that the end of men is near. It has, according to her, has a lot to do with our society and the changes that have occured over the past 50 years or so. But is this the end of men as we know it.
Listen to what she is saying in this video. She is a feminists
dream come true, and a Mans worst nightmare. You can see it in her eyes, cant you. Enjoy.



Feminism has reached a stage where it's most common argument is how loud it is. It's entered a stage of cocky behavior and self-righteous yells, and it's starting to annoy younger generations. It'll destroy itself before it destroys men. In fact, its yelling and double-standards are making people move in the opposite direction.

You mention feminism as if it's a monolith. As if there isn't headbutting between a diverse number of schools of thought from within (the debates between so-called liberal and poststructuralist feminist is extremely indicative here), as if the media representation of feminists as (generally speaking) loud man-haters is at all indicative of the movement as a whole (given yer above response I highly doubt yer too familiar with feminism in academia), and as if feminists aren't critical of other feminists (criticism by third-wave feminists of earlier feminists' supposed failure to deal with trans, queer, or non-white women's issues is an elucidating example).

A movement is defined by the loudest supporters, and they decide what it represents in the end.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 9:48:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/11/2014 9:41:06 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/11/2014 9:26:47 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/11/2014 8:10:47 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 10/19/2012 11:43:43 AM, inferno wrote:
I got an interesting thing I want to share with you guys here
at DDO today. Hanna Rosin believes that the end of men is near. It has, according to her, has a lot to do with our society and the changes that have occured over the past 50 years or so. But is this the end of men as we know it.
Listen to what she is saying in this video. She is a feminists
dream come true, and a Mans worst nightmare. You can see it in her eyes, cant you. Enjoy.



Feminism has reached a stage where it's most common argument is how loud it is. It's entered a stage of cocky behavior and self-righteous yells, and it's starting to annoy younger generations. It'll destroy itself before it destroys men. In fact, its yelling and double-standards are making people move in the opposite direction.

You mention feminism as if it's a monolith. As if there isn't headbutting between a diverse number of schools of thought from within (the debates between so-called liberal and poststructuralist feminist is extremely indicative here), as if the media representation of feminists as (generally speaking) loud man-haters is at all indicative of the movement as a whole (given yer above response I highly doubt yer too familiar with feminism in academia), and as if feminists aren't critical of other feminists (criticism by third-wave feminists of earlier feminists' supposed failure to deal with trans, queer, or non-white women's issues is an elucidating example).

A movement is defined by the loudest supporters, and they decide what it represents in the end.

That's nowhere close to a response. I pointed out how what you said was indicative of extreme ignorance regarding feminism as a field of study and you basically ignore that to talk about volume? All yer telling me is that you either lack the drive to look at feminism seriously or that, even when faced with a clear line of reasoning showing yer ignorance, yer being cognitively dissonant in the face of legitimate criticism.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 9:56:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/11/2014 9:48:03 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/11/2014 9:41:06 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/11/2014 9:26:47 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/11/2014 8:10:47 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 10/19/2012 11:43:43 AM, inferno wrote:
I got an interesting thing I want to share with you guys here
at DDO today. Hanna Rosin believes that the end of men is near. It has, according to her, has a lot to do with our society and the changes that have occured over the past 50 years or so. But is this the end of men as we know it.
Listen to what she is saying in this video. She is a feminists
dream come true, and a Mans worst nightmare. You can see it in her eyes, cant you. Enjoy.



Feminism has reached a stage where it's most common argument is how loud it is. It's entered a stage of cocky behavior and self-righteous yells, and it's starting to annoy younger generations. It'll destroy itself before it destroys men. In fact, its yelling and double-standards are making people move in the opposite direction.

You mention feminism as if it's a monolith. As if there isn't headbutting between a diverse number of schools of thought from within (the debates between so-called liberal and poststructuralist feminist is extremely indicative here), as if the media representation of feminists as (generally speaking) loud man-haters is at all indicative of the movement as a whole (given yer above response I highly doubt yer too familiar with feminism in academia), and as if feminists aren't critical of other feminists (criticism by third-wave feminists of earlier feminists' supposed failure to deal with trans, queer, or non-white women's issues is an elucidating example).

A movement is defined by the loudest supporters, and they decide what it represents in the end.

That's nowhere close to a response. I pointed out how what you said was indicative of extreme ignorance regarding feminism as a field of study and you basically ignore that to talk about volume? All yer telling me is that you either lack the drive to look at feminism seriously or that, even when faced with a clear line of reasoning showing yer ignorance, yer being cognitively dissonant in the face of legitimate criticism.

Responses don't have to be long. Sometimes simple and clean is the best response. What feminism is isn't as relevant as how it's represented. Movement A can be about all the right things, but if it's represented by all the wrong people, it doesn't matter. Movements are moved by those in control... the loud ones. The movement and the ideology doesn't always go hand in hand.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 10:10:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/11/2014 9:56:35 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/11/2014 9:48:03 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/11/2014 9:41:06 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/11/2014 9:26:47 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/11/2014 8:10:47 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 10/19/2012 11:43:43 AM, inferno wrote:
I got an interesting thing I want to share with you guys here
at DDO today. Hanna Rosin believes that the end of men is near. It has, according to her, has a lot to do with our society and the changes that have occured over the past 50 years or so. But is this the end of men as we know it.
Listen to what she is saying in this video. She is a feminists
dream come true, and a Mans worst nightmare. You can see it in her eyes, cant you. Enjoy.



Feminism has reached a stage where it's most common argument is how loud it is. It's entered a stage of cocky behavior and self-righteous yells, and it's starting to annoy younger generations. It'll destroy itself before it destroys men. In fact, its yelling and double-standards are making people move in the opposite direction.

You mention feminism as if it's a monolith. As if there isn't headbutting between a diverse number of schools of thought from within (the debates between so-called liberal and poststructuralist feminist is extremely indicative here), as if the media representation of feminists as (generally speaking) loud man-haters is at all indicative of the movement as a whole (given yer above response I highly doubt yer too familiar with feminism in academia), and as if feminists aren't critical of other feminists (criticism by third-wave feminists of earlier feminists' supposed failure to deal with trans, queer, or non-white women's issues is an elucidating example).

A movement is defined by the loudest supporters, and they decide what it represents in the end.

That's nowhere close to a response. I pointed out how what you said was indicative of extreme ignorance regarding feminism as a field of study and you basically ignore that to talk about volume? All yer telling me is that you either lack the drive to look at feminism seriously or that, even when faced with a clear line of reasoning showing yer ignorance, yer being cognitively dissonant in the face of legitimate criticism.

Responses don't have to be long. Sometimes simple and clean is the best response. What feminism is isn't as relevant as how it's represented. Movement A can be about all the right things, but if it's represented by all the wrong people, it doesn't matter. Movements are moved by those in control... the loud ones. The movement and the ideology doesn't always go hand in hand.

In yer first post you said feminism's "most common argument is how loud it is". Now yer backtracking to argue that yer *actual* point is that loud people are heard more often times than ~loud people (an irrelevant truism). When you said "common" you made a judgement concerning the general contents of feminist critical theory. This judgement, as I pointed out (and I'd be more than happy to go into more depth with that if you'd like), was flat out wrong. Own up to yer mistake instead of making an irrelevant judgement concerning the nature of social movements.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 10:18:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/11/2014 10:10:17 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/11/2014 9:56:35 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/11/2014 9:48:03 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/11/2014 9:41:06 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/11/2014 9:26:47 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/11/2014 8:10:47 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 10/19/2012 11:43:43 AM, inferno wrote:
I got an interesting thing I want to share with you guys here
at DDO today. Hanna Rosin believes that the end of men is near. It has, according to her, has a lot to do with our society and the changes that have occured over the past 50 years or so. But is this the end of men as we know it.
Listen to what she is saying in this video. She is a feminists
dream come true, and a Mans worst nightmare. You can see it in her eyes, cant you. Enjoy.



Feminism has reached a stage where it's most common argument is how loud it is. It's entered a stage of cocky behavior and self-righteous yells, and it's starting to annoy younger generations. It'll destroy itself before it destroys men. In fact, its yelling and double-standards are making people move in the opposite direction.

You mention feminism as if it's a monolith. As if there isn't headbutting between a diverse number of schools of thought from within (the debates between so-called liberal and poststructuralist feminist is extremely indicative here), as if the media representation of feminists as (generally speaking) loud man-haters is at all indicative of the movement as a whole (given yer above response I highly doubt yer too familiar with feminism in academia), and as if feminists aren't critical of other feminists (criticism by third-wave feminists of earlier feminists' supposed failure to deal with trans, queer, or non-white women's issues is an elucidating example).

A movement is defined by the loudest supporters, and they decide what it represents in the end.

That's nowhere close to a response. I pointed out how what you said was indicative of extreme ignorance regarding feminism as a field of study and you basically ignore that to talk about volume? All yer telling me is that you either lack the drive to look at feminism seriously or that, even when faced with a clear line of reasoning showing yer ignorance, yer being cognitively dissonant in the face of legitimate criticism.

Responses don't have to be long. Sometimes simple and clean is the best response. What feminism is isn't as relevant as how it's represented. Movement A can be about all the right things, but if it's represented by all the wrong people, it doesn't matter. Movements are moved by those in control... the loud ones. The movement and the ideology doesn't always go hand in hand.

In yer first post you said feminism's "most common argument is how loud it is". Now yer backtracking to argue that yer *actual* point is that loud people are heard more often times than ~loud people (an irrelevant truism). When you said "common" you made a judgement concerning the general contents of feminist critical theory. This judgement, as I pointed out (and I'd be more than happy to go into more depth with that if you'd like), was flat out wrong. Own up to yer mistake instead of making an irrelevant judgement concerning the nature of social movements.

The movement's argument... Not the Ideology's argument. There is a different. The ideology had great arguments, but the Movement has moved far beyond the original idea. Even then, just because an idea has many great argument, doesn't mean one of those will be it's most common. Look at Creationism... Creationism has many good arguments, but it's most common argument is still a really stupid one, and it makes the idea behind Creationism look stupid. I made no mistake.

The most common argument made by the very people representing feminism is one made of yelling and double-standards. Those arguments repress all the good arguments made by the more intelligent people who stick with feminism's original idea, and makes the Ideology very unpopular to younger generations who didn't grow up during the birth of the original movement.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 10:46:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/11/2014 10:18:27 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/11/2014 10:10:17 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/11/2014 9:56:35 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/11/2014 9:48:03 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/11/2014 9:41:06 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/11/2014 9:26:47 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/11/2014 8:10:47 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 10/19/2012 11:43:43 AM, inferno wrote:
I got an interesting thing I want to share with you guys here
at DDO today. Hanna Rosin believes that the end of men is near. It has, according to her, has a lot to do with our society and the changes that have occured over the past 50 years or so. But is this the end of men as we know it.
Listen to what she is saying in this video. She is a feminists
dream come true, and a Mans worst nightmare. You can see it in her eyes, cant you. Enjoy.



Feminism has reached a stage where it's most common argument is how loud it is. It's entered a stage of cocky behavior and self-righteous yells, and it's starting to annoy younger generations. It'll destroy itself before it destroys men. In fact, its yelling and double-standards are making people move in the opposite direction.

You mention feminism as if it's a monolith. As if there isn't headbutting between a diverse number of schools of thought from within (the debates between so-called liberal and poststructuralist feminist is extremely indicative here), as if the media representation of feminists as (generally speaking) loud man-haters is at all indicative of the movement as a whole (given yer above response I highly doubt yer too familiar with feminism in academia), and as if feminists aren't critical of other feminists (criticism by third-wave feminists of earlier feminists' supposed failure to deal with trans, queer, or non-white women's issues is an elucidating example).

A movement is defined by the loudest supporters, and they decide what it represents in the end.

That's nowhere close to a response. I pointed out how what you said was indicative of extreme ignorance regarding feminism as a field of study and you basically ignore that to talk about volume? All yer telling me is that you either lack the drive to look at feminism seriously or that, even when faced with a clear line of reasoning showing yer ignorance, yer being cognitively dissonant in the face of legitimate criticism.

Responses don't have to be long. Sometimes simple and clean is the best response. What feminism is isn't as relevant as how it's represented. Movement A can be about all the right things, but if it's represented by all the wrong people, it doesn't matter. Movements are moved by those in control... the loud ones. The movement and the ideology doesn't always go hand in hand.

In yer first post you said feminism's "most common argument is how loud it is". Now yer backtracking to argue that yer *actual* point is that loud people are heard more often times than ~loud people (an irrelevant truism). When you said "common" you made a judgement concerning the general contents of feminist critical theory. This judgement, as I pointed out (and I'd be more than happy to go into more depth with that if you'd like), was flat out wrong. Own up to yer mistake instead of making an irrelevant judgement concerning the nature of social movements.

The movement's argument... Not the Ideology's argument. There is a different. The ideology had great arguments, but the Movement has moved far beyond the original idea.

So many things.

1) There's no reason to separate the "movement" from the "ideology". Or, in better terms, there's no reason to separate theory from praxis. They're necessarily interconnected. The writing of Mary Wollstonecraft and Abigail Adams was intimately connected with the goals of the first-wave feminist movement just as Judith Butler's work on gender is intimately connected with many of the social goals of third-wave feminism.

2) What's wrong with moving past the original idea? (This is another reason I think yer mostly ignorant of feminism in general btw). The "original idea" was to be found in first-wave feminism, a movement which undertook to end de jure inequalities between men and women such as laws concerning voting, marriage, and property. As time went on, many (though not all) of these inequalities were (in some sense) won over. Newer, more pressing issues emerged out of this which gave rise to second-wave feminism and it's more de facto focus (of course still paying mind to legally inscripted inequalities). Birth control, pornography, reproductive rights, economic discrimination, etc. came to the forefront. In a similar manner that first transitioned to second-wave, third-wave feminism emerged out of its predecessor with a renewed focus on newer (still pressing) issues which hadn't been given representation. This theoretical-movement focused on many of the aspects ignored by earlier feminism, such as the ignoring of non-white, non-cis, non-straight women's issues. A framing of gender, femininity and sexuality with a suspicion of (or outright antagonism towards) essentialism was also produced. This movement incorporated elements of radical queer theory and poststructuralism into its analysis of women's issues. My question to you is, why are these issues less important than the original ones?

Even then, just because an idea has many great argument, doesn't mean one of those will be it's most common. Look at Creationism... Creationism has many good arguments, but it's most common argument is still a really stupid one, and it makes the idea behind Creationism look stupid. I made no mistake.

Creationism literally has no good arguments. Failed analogy is a failed analogy.

The most common argument made by the very people representing feminism is one made of yelling and double-standards. Those arguments repress all the good arguments made by the more intelligent people who stick with feminism's original idea, and makes the Ideology very unpopular to younger generations who didn't grow up during the birth of the original movement.

Give me examples of these double standards. I'll (for the moment) choose to ignore the point about yelling given that it's (a) an unsubstantiated generalization about an entire political, social, educational, theoretical, and academic movement and (b) that it's just begging for a reductio e.g. Rick Santorum for conservatism, Elizabeth Warren for liberalism, Alex Jones for libertarianism, etc. etc.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 11:03:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/11/2014 10:46:40 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/11/2014 10:18:27 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/11/2014 10:10:17 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/11/2014 9:56:35 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/11/2014 9:48:03 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/11/2014 9:41:06 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/11/2014 9:26:47 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/11/2014 8:10:47 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 10/19/2012 11:43:43 AM, inferno wrote:
I got an interesting thing I want to share with you guys here
at DDO today. Hanna Rosin believes that the end of men is near. It has, according to her, has a lot to do with our society and the changes that have occured over the past 50 years or so. But is this the end of men as we know it.
Listen to what she is saying in this video. She is a feminists
dream come true, and a Mans worst nightmare. You can see it in her eyes, cant you. Enjoy.



Feminism has reached a stage where it's most common argument is how loud it is. It's entered a stage of cocky behavior and self-righteous yells, and it's starting to annoy younger generations. It'll destroy itself before it destroys men. In fact, its yelling and double-standards are making people move in the opposite direction.

You mention feminism as if it's a monolith. As if there isn't headbutting between a diverse number of schools of thought from within (the debates between so-called liberal and poststructuralist feminist is extremely indicative here), as if the media representation of feminists as (generally speaking) loud man-haters is at all indicative of the movement as a whole (given yer above response I highly doubt yer too familiar with feminism in academia), and as if feminists aren't critical of other feminists (criticism by third-wave feminists of earlier feminists' supposed failure to deal with trans, queer, or non-white women's issues is an elucidating example).

A movement is defined by the loudest supporters, and they decide what it represents in the end.

That's nowhere close to a response. I pointed out how what you said was indicative of extreme ignorance regarding feminism as a field of study and you basically ignore that to talk about volume? All yer telling me is that you either lack the drive to look at feminism seriously or that, even when faced with a clear line of reasoning showing yer ignorance, yer being cognitively dissonant in the face of legitimate criticism.

Responses don't have to be long. Sometimes simple and clean is the best response. What feminism is isn't as relevant as how it's represented. Movement A can be about all the right things, but if it's represented by all the wrong people, it doesn't matter. Movements are moved by those in control... the loud ones. The movement and the ideology doesn't always go hand in hand.

In yer first post you said feminism's "most common argument is how loud it is". Now yer backtracking to argue that yer *actual* point is that loud people are heard more often times than ~loud people (an irrelevant truism). When you said "common" you made a judgement concerning the general contents of feminist critical theory. This judgement, as I pointed out (and I'd be more than happy to go into more depth with that if you'd like), was flat out wrong. Own up to yer mistake instead of making an irrelevant judgement concerning the nature of social movements.

The movement's argument... Not the Ideology's argument. There is a different. The ideology had great arguments, but the Movement has moved far beyond the original idea.

So many things.

1) There's no reason to separate the "movement" from the "ideology". Or, in better terms, there's no reason to separate theory from praxis. They're necessarily interconnected. The writing of Mary Wollstonecraft and Abigail Adams was intimately connected with the goals of the first-wave feminist movement just as Judith Butler's work on gender is intimately connected with many of the social goals of third-wave feminism.

2) What's wrong with moving past the original idea? (This is another reason I think yer mostly ignorant of feminism in general btw). The "original idea" was to be found in first-wave feminism, a movement which undertook to end de jure inequalities between men and women such as laws concerning voting, marriage, and property. As time went on, many (though not all) of these inequalities were (in some sense) won over. Newer, more pressing issues emerged out of this which gave rise to second-wave feminism and it's more de facto focus (of course still paying mind to legally inscripted inequalities). Birth control, pornography, reproductive rights, economic discrimination, etc. came to the forefront. In a similar manner that first transitioned to second-wave, third-wave feminism emerged out of its predecessor with a renewed focus on newer (still pressing) issues which hadn't been given representation. This theoretical-movement focused on many of the aspects ignored by earlier feminism, such as the ignoring of non-white, non-cis, non-straight women's issues. A framing of gender, femininity and sexuality with a suspicion of (or outright antagonism towards) essentialism was also produced. This movement incorporated elements of radical queer theory and poststructuralism into its analysis of women's issues. My question to you is, why are these issues less important than the original ones?

Moving *too far* past the original idea. Moving beyond what was okay, and entering an area that isn't okay.


Even then, just because an idea has many great argument, doesn't mean one of those will be it's most common. Look at Creationism... Creationism has many good arguments, but it's most common argument is still a really stupid one, and it makes the idea behind Creationism look stupid. I made no mistake.

Creationism literally has no good arguments. Failed analogy is a failed analogy.

Only a fool believes an entire ideology of that scope has no good arguments.


The most common argument made by the very people representing feminism is one made of yelling and double-standards. Those arguments repress all the good arguments made by the more intelligent people who stick with feminism's original idea, and makes the Ideology very unpopular to younger generations who didn't grow up during the birth of the original movement.

Give me examples of these double standards. I'll (for the moment) choose to ignore the point about yelling given that it's (a) an unsubstantiated generalization about an entire political, social, educational, theoretical, and academic movement and (b) that it's just begging for a reductio e.g. Rick Santorum for conservatism, Elizabeth Warren for liberalism, Alex Jones for libertarianism, etc. etc.

*One-sided demand of Chivalry.
*Devaluing of men.
*Can hit a man, but not a woman.
*"Women are as strong as men" when it's convenient, then "Women are weaker" when it's convenient.
*Women wants a buff man = okay. Man wants a skinny woman = scumbag.
*Okay to have women only things, but sexist to have men only things (like men-only groups).
*Men out preforming women in job areas is bad (construction, game design) while women out preforming men is progress (nursing.)

These aren't the ideas of the Feminist Ideology, but these are the ideas of the louder members of the movement that represent It. This isn't about generalization but representation... Representation being the most important aspect of an ideology.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 11:13:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/11/2014 11:03:17 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/11/2014 10:46:40 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/11/2014 10:18:27 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/11/2014 10:10:17 PM, Noumena wrote:

In yer first post you said feminism's "most common argument is how loud it is". Now yer backtracking to argue that yer *actual* point is that loud people are heard more often times than ~loud people (an irrelevant truism). When you said "common" you made a judgement concerning the general contents of feminist critical theory. This judgement, as I pointed out (and I'd be more than happy to go into more depth with that if you'd like), was flat out wrong. Own up to yer mistake instead of making an irrelevant judgement concerning the nature of social movements.

The movement's argument... Not the Ideology's argument. There is a different. The ideology had great arguments, but the Movement has moved far beyond the original idea.

So many things.

1) There's no reason to separate the "movement" from the "ideology". Or, in better terms, there's no reason to separate theory from praxis. They're necessarily interconnected. The writing of Mary Wollstonecraft and Abigail Adams was intimately connected with the goals of the first-wave feminist movement just as Judith Butler's work on gender is intimately connected with many of the social goals of third-wave feminism.

2) What's wrong with moving past the original idea? (This is another reason I think yer mostly ignorant of feminism in general btw). The "original idea" was to be found in first-wave feminism, a movement which undertook to end de jure inequalities between men and women such as laws concerning voting, marriage, and property. As time went on, many (though not all) of these inequalities were (in some sense) won over. Newer, more pressing issues emerged out of this which gave rise to second-wave feminism and it's more de facto focus (of course still paying mind to legally inscripted inequalities). Birth control, pornography, reproductive rights, economic discrimination, etc. came to the forefront. In a similar manner that first transitioned to second-wave, third-wave feminism emerged out of its predecessor with a renewed focus on newer (still pressing) issues which hadn't been given representation. This theoretical-movement focused on many of the aspects ignored by earlier feminism, such as the ignoring of non-white, non-cis, non-straight women's issues. A framing of gender, femininity and sexuality with a suspicion of (or outright antagonism towards) essentialism was also produced. This movement incorporated elements of radical queer theory and poststructuralism into its analysis of women's issues. My question to you is, why are these issues less important than the original ones?

Moving *too far* past the original idea. Moving beyond what was okay, and entering an area that isn't okay.

What area specifically?


Even then, just because an idea has many great argument, doesn't mean one of those will be it's most common. Look at Creationism... Creationism has many good arguments, but it's most common argument is still a really stupid one, and it makes the idea behind Creationism look stupid. I made no mistake.

Creationism literally has no good arguments. Failed analogy is a failed analogy.

Only a fool believes an entire ideology of that scope has no good arguments.

Not to derail but I call bullsh't.


The most common argument made by the very people representing feminism is one made of yelling and double-standards. Those arguments repress all the good arguments made by the more intelligent people who stick with feminism's original idea, and makes the Ideology very unpopular to younger generations who didn't grow up during the birth of the original movement.

Give me examples of these double standards. I'll (for the moment) choose to ignore the point about yelling given that it's (a) an unsubstantiated generalization about an entire political, social, educational, theoretical, and academic movement and (b) that it's just begging for a reductio e.g. Rick Santorum for conservatism, Elizabeth Warren for liberalism, Alex Jones for libertarianism, etc. etc.

*One-sided demand of Chivalry.
*Devaluing of men.
*Can hit a man, but not a woman.
*"Women are as strong as men" when it's convenient, then "Women are weaker" when it's convenient.
*Women wants a buff man = okay. Man wants a skinny woman = scumbag.
*Okay to have women only things, but sexist to have men only things (like men-only groups).

I'd ask for examples of feminist literature supporting these things but I already know yer not in any way familiar with it. Plus I'm talking to a brickwall right now considering yer fond of equivocating the social norms of some women with a social-theoretical movement aimed at critically examining women's and gender issues.

*Men out preforming women in job areas is bad (construction, game design) while women out preforming men is progress (nursing.)

http://mrwgifs.com...

These aren't the ideas of the Feminist Ideology, but these are the ideas of the louder members of the movement that represent It. This isn't about generalization but representation... Representation being the most important aspect of an ideology.

Did you just ignore me when I literally just talked about the connection between theory and praxis? Having to do with women does not necessarily mean feminism.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
YYW
Posts: 36,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 11:27:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Neither are these novel ideas, nor are they new. But, they are not without meaning.

This, to me, is the manifestation of something precipitously close to fourth-wave feminism -where feminism, culturally, arrives and returns full-circle such that it can no longer self identify, as even though patriarchy may, in certain places, still exist, feminism cannot define itself as defense of the oppressed because rather than defending it has taken the offense (see second and third wave feminism) -and won.

I'm not a cycles history guy, but if I were and I were reviewing intellectual and ideological progression over time, this would to me represent a pivotal moment in what it means to be a woman -where women have become so successful that they are the eternal mothers of boys.

I remember presenting (a much more coherent) version of that idea in a class one time and I basically had a girl call me out for being a misogynistic patriarchally biased "man" -whereupon I promptly informed her that, perhaps, I'm a misogynist of the worst kind... lol. After all, I won't even sleep with women.

She quickly shut the fvck up. I think I was a freshman in college, maybe? idk... long time ago, is the point.
Tsar of DDO
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 12:04:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/11/2014 11:13:04 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/11/2014 11:03:17 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/11/2014 10:46:40 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/11/2014 10:18:27 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/11/2014 10:10:17 PM, Noumena wrote:

In yer first post you said feminism's "most common argument is how loud it is". Now yer backtracking to argue that yer *actual* point is that loud people are heard more often times than ~loud people (an irrelevant truism). When you said "common" you made a judgement concerning the general contents of feminist critical theory. This judgement, as I pointed out (and I'd be more than happy to go into more depth with that if you'd like), was flat out wrong. Own up to yer mistake instead of making an irrelevant judgement concerning the nature of social movements.

The movement's argument... Not the Ideology's argument. There is a different. The ideology had great arguments, but the Movement has moved far beyond the original idea.

So many things.

1) There's no reason to separate the "movement" from the "ideology". Or, in better terms, there's no reason to separate theory from praxis. They're necessarily interconnected. The writing of Mary Wollstonecraft and Abigail Adams was intimately connected with the goals of the first-wave feminist movement just as Judith Butler's work on gender is intimately connected with many of the social goals of third-wave feminism.

2) What's wrong with moving past the original idea? (This is another reason I think yer mostly ignorant of feminism in general btw). The "original idea" was to be found in first-wave feminism, a movement which undertook to end de jure inequalities between men and women such as laws concerning voting, marriage, and property. As time went on, many (though not all) of these inequalities were (in some sense) won over. Newer, more pressing issues emerged out of this which gave rise to second-wave feminism and it's more de facto focus (of course still paying mind to legally inscripted inequalities). Birth control, pornography, reproductive rights, economic discrimination, etc. came to the forefront. In a similar manner that first transitioned to second-wave, third-wave feminism emerged out of its predecessor with a renewed focus on newer (still pressing) issues which hadn't been given representation. This theoretical-movement focused on many of the aspects ignored by earlier feminism, such as the ignoring of non-white, non-cis, non-straight women's issues. A framing of gender, femininity and sexuality with a suspicion of (or outright antagonism towards) essentialism was also produced. This movement incorporated elements of radical queer theory and poststructuralism into its analysis of women's issues. My question to you is, why are these issues less important than the original ones?

Moving *too far* past the original idea. Moving beyond what was okay, and entering an area that isn't okay.

What area specifically?

The areas listed below.



Even then, just because an idea has many great argument, doesn't mean one of those will be it's most common. Look at Creationism... Creationism has many good arguments, but it's most common argument is still a really stupid one, and it makes the idea behind Creationism look stupid. I made no mistake.

Creationism literally has no good arguments. Failed analogy is a failed analogy.

Only a fool believes an entire ideology of that scope has no good arguments.

Not to derail but I call bullsh't.

kalam cosmological argument: even if you don't believe in it, it is a well defined argument like any other.



The most common argument made by the very people representing feminism is one made of yelling and double-standards. Those arguments repress all the good arguments made by the more intelligent people who stick with feminism's original idea, and makes the Ideology very unpopular to younger generations who didn't grow up during the birth of the original movement.

Give me examples of these double standards. I'll (for the moment) choose to ignore the point about yelling given that it's (a) an unsubstantiated generalization about an entire political, social, educational, theoretical, and academic movement and (b) that it's just begging for a reductio e.g. Rick Santorum for conservatism, Elizabeth Warren for liberalism, Alex Jones for libertarianism, etc. etc.

*One-sided demand of Chivalry.
*Devaluing of men.
*Can hit a man, but not a woman.
*"Women are as strong as men" when it's convenient, then "Women are weaker" when it's convenient.
*Women wants a buff man = okay. Man wants a skinny woman = scumbag.
*Okay to have women only things, but sexist to have men only things (like men-only groups).

I'd ask for examples of feminist literature supporting these things but I already know yer not in any way familiar with it. Plus I'm talking to a brickwall right now considering yer fond of equivocating the social norms of some women with a social-theoretical movement aimed at critically examining women's and gender issues.

"I feel that "man-hating" is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." " Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor

"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig." " Andrea Dworkin

"All men are rapists and that's all they are" - 'The Women's Room (1977)'

"If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males. People are afraid to say that kind of stuff anymore" - 'Quintessence...Realizing the Archaic Future: A Radical Elemental Feminist Manifesto, Beacon Press, 1998.'


*Men out preforming women in job areas is bad (construction, game design) while women out preforming men is progress (nursing.)

http://mrwgifs.com...


These aren't the ideas of the Feminist Ideology, but these are the ideas of the louder members of the movement that represent It. This isn't about generalization but representation... Representation being the most important aspect of an ideology.

Did you just ignore me when I literally just talked about the connection between theory and praxis? Having to do with women does not necessarily mean feminism.

http://www.pbs.org...
The Movement is the same, just with different people leading it, moving it away from the base ideology it was founded on. The above interview is two 2nd Era Feminists discussing modern Feminism (3rd era.)

The movement follows the path its loudest members follow, with everyone else following behind voting for the legislation even if they aren't radicals like the movement leaders. That's how movements work.

If you think you are in a position to win, accept my debate challenge. We're aren't going to get anywhere here.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 12:18:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/11/2014 11:27:49 PM, YYW wrote:
Neither are these novel ideas, nor are they new. But, they are not without meaning.

This, to me, is the manifestation of something precipitously close to fourth-wave feminism -where feminism, culturally, arrives and returns full-circle such that it can no longer self identify, as even though patriarchy may, in certain places, still exist, feminism cannot define itself as defense of the oppressed because rather than defending it has taken the offense (see second and third wave feminism) -and won.

I don't see how it's "won". The only thing I'd say for certain is that the aims and ideals of first-wave feminism have been nearly fully realized in the first world. Colonial politics, trans/cis issues, media representation, essentialism concerning femininity, overlap with queer politics, the appropriating bullsh't currently being churned out by liberal feminists, various other intersectional issues, etc. are all still issues that need attending to.

I'm not a cycles history guy, but if I were and I were reviewing intellectual and ideological progression over time, this would to me represent a pivotal moment in what it means to be a woman -where women have become so successful that they are the eternal mothers of boys.

No idea what that's supposed to mean.

I remember presenting (a much more coherent) version of that idea in a class one time and I basically had a girl call me out for being a misogynistic patriarchally biased "man" -whereupon I promptly informed her that, perhaps, I'm a misogynist of the worst kind... lol. After all, I won't even sleep with women.

She quickly shut the fvck up. I think I was a freshman in college, maybe? idk... long time ago, is the point.

I've used that line before actually (well kind of). A friend was in a bit of shock about how much I'd familiarized myself with third-wave feminism (she brought up that it was peculiar to see a man saying the same things as the women whom she usually discussed issues like this with). I retorted that I'm actually secretly sexist given that I wouldn't let her touch me with a ten foot pole. I suppose I could use that as a jumping off point if I were ever in the mood to write about the relationship between queer theory and feminism.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 12:25:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 12:04:05 AM, donald.keller wrote:

If you think you are in a position to win, accept my debate challenge. We're aren't going to get anywhere here.

Ridiculous resolution is ridiculous.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 12:26:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 12:25:12 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/12/2014 12:04:05 AM, donald.keller wrote:

If you think you are in a position to win, accept my debate challenge. We're aren't going to get anywhere here.

Ridiculous resolution is ridiculous.

That resolution is the argument we are having.
"The Current Feminist Movement is Anti-Male."
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 12:34:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 12:26:41 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 12:25:12 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/12/2014 12:04:05 AM, donald.keller wrote:

If you think you are in a position to win, accept my debate challenge. We're aren't going to get anywhere here.

Ridiculous resolution is ridiculous.

That resolution is the argument we are having.
"The Current Feminist Movement is Anti-Male."

1) Ignores that there is no isolatable 'thing' that is the feminist movement. Yer defining it simply as those feminists you choose to represent it with/
2) Ignores literally everything I said about the relationship between theory and praxis.
3) Makes an implicit judgement-claim through ambiguous value-laden wording.

etc.

etc.

etc.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 12:35:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 12:34:18 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/12/2014 12:26:41 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 12:25:12 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/12/2014 12:04:05 AM, donald.keller wrote:

If you think you are in a position to win, accept my debate challenge. We're aren't going to get anywhere here.

Ridiculous resolution is ridiculous.

That resolution is the argument we are having.
"The Current Feminist Movement is Anti-Male."

1) Ignores that there is no isolatable 'thing' that is the feminist movement. Yer defining it simply as those feminists you choose to represent it with/
2) Ignores literally everything I said about the relationship between theory and praxis.
3) Makes an implicit judgement-claim through ambiguous value-laden wording.

etc.

etc.

etc.

If you believe you can win. Accept.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 12:39:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 12:35:05 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 12:34:18 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/12/2014 12:26:41 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 12:25:12 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/12/2014 12:04:05 AM, donald.keller wrote:

If you think you are in a position to win, accept my debate challenge. We're aren't going to get anywhere here.

Ridiculous resolution is ridiculous.

That resolution is the argument we are having.
"The Current Feminist Movement is Anti-Male."

1) Ignores that there is no isolatable 'thing' that is the feminist movement. Yer defining it simply as those feminists you choose to represent it with/
2) Ignores literally everything I said about the relationship between theory and praxis.
3) Makes an implicit judgement-claim through ambiguous value-laden wording.

etc.

etc.

etc.

If you believe you can win. Accept.

I don't care about that. I'd like to have a discussion that isn't obfuscated by yer dumb framing.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 12:41:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 12:39:34 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/12/2014 12:35:05 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 12:34:18 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/12/2014 12:26:41 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 12:25:12 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/12/2014 12:04:05 AM, donald.keller wrote:

If you think you are in a position to win, accept my debate challenge. We're aren't going to get anywhere here.

Ridiculous resolution is ridiculous.

That resolution is the argument we are having.
"The Current Feminist Movement is Anti-Male."

1) Ignores that there is no isolatable 'thing' that is the feminist movement. Yer defining it simply as those feminists you choose to represent it with/
2) Ignores literally everything I said about the relationship between theory and praxis.
3) Makes an implicit judgement-claim through ambiguous value-laden wording.

etc.

etc.

etc.

If you believe you can win. Accept.

I don't care about that. I'd like to have a discussion that isn't obfuscated by yer dumb framing.

My arguments are valid. Like I said, if you believe my arguments are flawed and "dumb", than prove it through peer-review.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 12:45:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 12:41:59 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 12:39:34 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/12/2014 12:35:05 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 12:34:18 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/12/2014 12:26:41 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 12:25:12 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/12/2014 12:04:05 AM, donald.keller wrote:

If you think you are in a position to win, accept my debate challenge. We're aren't going to get anywhere here.

Ridiculous resolution is ridiculous.

That resolution is the argument we are having.
"The Current Feminist Movement is Anti-Male."

1) Ignores that there is no isolatable 'thing' that is the feminist movement. Yer defining it simply as those feminists you choose to represent it with/
2) Ignores literally everything I said about the relationship between theory and praxis.
3) Makes an implicit judgement-claim through ambiguous value-laden wording.

etc.

etc.

etc.

If you believe you can win. Accept.

I don't care about that. I'd like to have a discussion that isn't obfuscated by yer dumb framing.

My arguments are valid. Like I said, if you believe my arguments are flawed and "dumb", than prove it through peer-review.

So I point out why the resolution you want me to attack misconstrues the very nature of my position and the very subject that we're discussing and this is how you respond?
http://31.media.tumblr.com...
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 12:50:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 12:45:31 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/12/2014 12:41:59 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 12:39:34 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/12/2014 12:35:05 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 12:34:18 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/12/2014 12:26:41 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 12:25:12 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/12/2014 12:04:05 AM, donald.keller wrote:

If you think you are in a position to win, accept my debate challenge. We're aren't going to get anywhere here.

Ridiculous resolution is ridiculous.

That resolution is the argument we are having.
"The Current Feminist Movement is Anti-Male."

1) Ignores that there is no isolatable 'thing' that is the feminist movement. Yer defining it simply as those feminists you choose to represent it with/
2) Ignores literally everything I said about the relationship between theory and praxis.
3) Makes an implicit judgement-claim through ambiguous value-laden wording.

etc.

etc.

etc.

If you believe you can win. Accept.

I don't care about that. I'd like to have a discussion that isn't obfuscated by yer dumb framing.

My arguments are valid. Like I said, if you believe my arguments are flawed and "dumb", than prove it through peer-review.

So I point out why the resolution you want me to attack misconstrues the very nature of my position and the very subject that we're discussing and this is how you respond?
http://31.media.tumblr.com...

You didn't give an counter-resolution, so I'm sticking by mine. It represents Pro's very position. That's the point... I tried to prove my position (the Resolution) and you attack it, and aim to prove a different resolution is correct.

I gave my position, which is now reflected in the Resolution, and you attacked my position, so you can attack the Resolution. The resolution isn't supposed to reflect Con's position.

The Resolution reflect the nature of the argument... Whether or not Feminism has gone too far, becoming sexist towards men.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 12:54:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 12:50:51 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 12:45:31 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/12/2014 12:41:59 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 12:39:34 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/12/2014 12:35:05 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 12:34:18 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/12/2014 12:26:41 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 12:25:12 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/12/2014 12:04:05 AM, donald.keller wrote:

If you think you are in a position to win, accept my debate challenge. We're aren't going to get anywhere here.

Ridiculous resolution is ridiculous.

That resolution is the argument we are having.
"The Current Feminist Movement is Anti-Male."

1) Ignores that there is no isolatable 'thing' that is the feminist movement. Yer defining it simply as those feminists you choose to represent it with/
2) Ignores literally everything I said about the relationship between theory and praxis.
3) Makes an implicit judgement-claim through ambiguous value-laden wording.

etc.

etc.

etc.

If you believe you can win. Accept.

I don't care about that. I'd like to have a discussion that isn't obfuscated by yer dumb framing.

My arguments are valid. Like I said, if you believe my arguments are flawed and "dumb", than prove it through peer-review.

So I point out why the resolution you want me to attack misconstrues the very nature of my position and the very subject that we're discussing and this is how you respond?
http://31.media.tumblr.com...

You didn't give an counter-resolution, so I'm sticking by mine. It represents Pro's very position. That's the point... I tried to prove my position (the Resolution) and you attack it, and aim to prove a different resolution is correct.

I didn't suggest a debate at all.

I gave my position, which is now reflected in the Resolution, and you attacked my position, so you can attack the Resolution. The resolution isn't supposed to reflect Con's position.

The Resolution reflect the nature of the argument... Whether or not Feminism has gone too far, becoming sexist towards men.

http://i111.photobucket.com...
Read what I've written. Try to understand why yer resolution is dumb and why I don't want to debate it. If you get it, give me a call. If you don't, I'm done with this conversation. Nothing more I can do.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.