Total Posts:72|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Feminists should be ignored

Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 7:33:42 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
There is nothing more aggravating than hearing a late teens - early twenties, ditzy girl ramble about how gender roles are entirely a social construct, or how the wage-gap between the sexes exists because women are oppressed. Both have been debunked to the point of ad nauseam, and spending valuable mental resources addressing this trite is a burden to anyone engaged in this.

In light of this, this is how you should deal with a feminist:

1. Ignore them

2. If 1. isn't possible, laugh and/or mock them with a dismissive comment. Repeat until 1. is possible

There you have it. You never engage these spoiled-children in debate, because they operate based on their feelings and the toxins of their ideology, rather than sustained reason. If you doubt otherwise, attempt to engage them and watch them flee when you show substantial proof of their errors.

Don't waste your time -- ignore feminists.
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 8:28:38 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/7/2015 7:33:42 PM, Zarroette wrote:
There is nothing more aggravating than hearing a late teens - early twenties, ditzy girl ramble about how gender roles are entirely a social construct, or how the wage-gap between the sexes exists because women are oppressed. Both have been debunked to the point of ad nauseam, and spending valuable mental resources addressing this trite is a burden to anyone engaged in this.

In light of this, this is how you should deal with a feminist:

1. Ignore them

2. If 1. isn't possible, laugh and/or mock them with a dismissive comment. Repeat until 1. is possible

There you have it. You never engage these spoiled-children in debate, because they operate based on their feelings and the toxins of their ideology, rather than sustained reason. If you doubt otherwise, attempt to engage them and watch them flee when you show substantial proof of their errors.

Don't waste your time -- ignore feminists.

The only feminists I dislike are those who talk about men in the same way racists talk about black people. "They are overrepresented in crimes! It must be something strange about them!" which is quite contradictory x1000 since feminism and anti-racism almost always go hand-in-hand.

Maybe you've heard the "it is good to hate men because hatred against men doesn't do anything!"?
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 8:35:56 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/7/2015 8:28:38 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 12/7/2015 7:33:42 PM, Zarroette wrote:
There is nothing more aggravating than hearing a late teens - early twenties, ditzy girl ramble about how gender roles are entirely a social construct, or how the wage-gap between the sexes exists because women are oppressed. Both have been debunked to the point of ad nauseam, and spending valuable mental resources addressing this trite is a burden to anyone engaged in this.

In light of this, this is how you should deal with a feminist:

1. Ignore them

2. If 1. isn't possible, laugh and/or mock them with a dismissive comment. Repeat until 1. is possible

There you have it. You never engage these spoiled-children in debate, because they operate based on their feelings and the toxins of their ideology, rather than sustained reason. If you doubt otherwise, attempt to engage them and watch them flee when you show substantial proof of their errors.

Don't waste your time -- ignore feminists.

The only feminists I dislike are those who talk about men in the same way racists talk about black people. "They are overrepresented in crimes! It must be something strange about them!" which is quite contradictory x1000 since feminism and anti-racism almost always go hand-in-hand.

Maybe you've heard the "it is good to hate men because hatred against men doesn't do anything!"?

...which is so idiotic that I can't find words. Does the world become a better place by replacing hatred with hatred? I don't know how to deal with that kind of feminists. Either the case with them is

1. They are using these rhetorics in order to provoke people or make people start a discussion - solution: Ignore. There are better ways of starting discussions than using harsh rhetorics.
2. They are using these rhetorics because they actually think it's a good strategy - solution: Expose their double standards, tell them that their hatred makes them no better than Hitler
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 9:11:37 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/7/2015 8:35:56 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 12/7/2015 8:28:38 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 12/7/2015 7:33:42 PM, Zarroette wrote:
There is nothing more aggravating than hearing a late teens - early twenties, ditzy girl ramble about how gender roles are entirely a social construct, or how the wage-gap between the sexes exists because women are oppressed. Both have been debunked to the point of ad nauseam, and spending valuable mental resources addressing this trite is a burden to anyone engaged in this.

In light of this, this is how you should deal with a feminist:

1. Ignore them

2. If 1. isn't possible, laugh and/or mock them with a dismissive comment. Repeat until 1. is possible

There you have it. You never engage these spoiled-children in debate, because they operate based on their feelings and the toxins of their ideology, rather than sustained reason. If you doubt otherwise, attempt to engage them and watch them flee when you show substantial proof of their errors.

Don't waste your time -- ignore feminists.

The only feminists I dislike are those who talk about men in the same way racists talk about black people. "They are overrepresented in crimes! It must be something strange about them!" which is quite contradictory x1000 since feminism and anti-racism almost always go hand-in-hand.

Maybe you've heard the "it is good to hate men because hatred against men doesn't do anything!"?

...which is so idiotic that I can't find words. Does the world become a better place by replacing hatred with hatred? I don't know how to deal with that kind of feminists. Either the case with them is

1. They are using these rhetorics in order to provoke people or make people start a discussion - solution: Ignore. There are better ways of starting discussions than using harsh rhetorics.
2. They are using these rhetorics because they actually think it's a good strategy - solution: Expose their double standards, tell them that their hatred makes them no better than Hitler

Does it really matter? If a 4 year-old were to tell you, "I want lots of lots of candy because it's really yummy," do you explain to the child the effect of glucose, only to have the child say, "but I really want it!"-, and then you continue with a thorough explanation as to why whilst yes, it is yummy, it can cause large problems to your teeth, only to have the child cry and stamp about, to which you... etc...

You see the problem? Who cares what the child thinks?
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 9:26:12 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/7/2015 9:11:37 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/7/2015 8:35:56 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 12/7/2015 8:28:38 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 12/7/2015 7:33:42 PM, Zarroette wrote:
There is nothing more aggravating than hearing a late teens - early twenties, ditzy girl ramble about how gender roles are entirely a social construct, or how the wage-gap between the sexes exists because women are oppressed. Both have been debunked to the point of ad nauseam, and spending valuable mental resources addressing this trite is a burden to anyone engaged in this.

In light of this, this is how you should deal with a feminist:

1. Ignore them

2. If 1. isn't possible, laugh and/or mock them with a dismissive comment. Repeat until 1. is possible

There you have it. You never engage these spoiled-children in debate, because they operate based on their feelings and the toxins of their ideology, rather than sustained reason. If you doubt otherwise, attempt to engage them and watch them flee when you show substantial proof of their errors.

Don't waste your time -- ignore feminists.

The only feminists I dislike are those who talk about men in the same way racists talk about black people. "They are overrepresented in crimes! It must be something strange about them!" which is quite contradictory x1000 since feminism and anti-racism almost always go hand-in-hand.

Maybe you've heard the "it is good to hate men because hatred against men doesn't do anything!"?

...which is so idiotic that I can't find words. Does the world become a better place by replacing hatred with hatred? I don't know how to deal with that kind of feminists. Either the case with them is

1. They are using these rhetorics in order to provoke people or make people start a discussion - solution: Ignore. There are better ways of starting discussions than using harsh rhetorics.
2. They are using these rhetorics because they actually think it's a good strategy - solution: Expose their double standards, tell them that their hatred makes them no better than Hitler

Does it really matter? If a 4 year-old were to tell you, "I want lots of lots of candy because it's really yummy," do you explain to the child the effect of glucose, only to have the child say, "but I really want it!"-, and then you continue with a thorough explanation as to why whilst yes, it is yummy, it can cause large problems to your teeth, only to have the child cry and stamp about, to which you... etc...

You see the problem? Who cares what the child thinks?

Well, there is good aspects of feminism too.
Rosalie
Posts: 4,605
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 9:32:04 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/7/2015 9:26:12 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 12/7/2015 9:11:37 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/7/2015 8:35:56 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 12/7/2015 8:28:38 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 12/7/2015 7:33:42 PM, Zarroette wrote:
There is nothing more aggravating than hearing a late teens - early twenties, ditzy girl ramble about how gender roles are entirely a social construct, or how the wage-gap between the sexes exists because women are oppressed. Both have been debunked to the point of ad nauseam, and spending valuable mental resources addressing this trite is a burden to anyone engaged in this.

In light of this, this is how you should deal with a feminist:

1. Ignore them

2. If 1. isn't possible, laugh and/or mock them with a dismissive comment. Repeat until 1. is possible

There you have it. You never engage these spoiled-children in debate, because they operate based on their feelings and the toxins of their ideology, rather than sustained reason. If you doubt otherwise, attempt to engage them and watch them flee when you show substantial proof of their errors.

Don't waste your time -- ignore feminists.

The only feminists I dislike are those who talk about men in the same way racists talk about black people. "They are overrepresented in crimes! It must be something strange about them!" which is quite contradictory x1000 since feminism and anti-racism almost always go hand-in-hand.

Maybe you've heard the "it is good to hate men because hatred against men doesn't do anything!"?

...which is so idiotic that I can't find words. Does the world become a better place by replacing hatred with hatred? I don't know how to deal with that kind of feminists. Either the case with them is

1. They are using these rhetorics in order to provoke people or make people start a discussion - solution: Ignore. There are better ways of starting discussions than using harsh rhetorics.
2. They are using these rhetorics because they actually think it's a good strategy - solution: Expose their double standards, tell them that their hatred makes them no better than Hitler

Does it really matter? If a 4 year-old were to tell you, "I want lots of lots of candy because it's really yummy," do you explain to the child the effect of glucose, only to have the child say, "but I really want it!"-, and then you continue with a thorough explanation as to why whilst yes, it is yummy, it can cause large problems to your teeth, only to have the child cry and stamp about, to which you... etc...

You see the problem? Who cares what the child thinks?

Well, there is good aspects of feminism too.

I agree.

Without Feminism-

Women wouldn't be able to vote.
Women wouldn't be able to go to school.
Genital Mutilation would be legal everywhere.

It's sad though that some Feminist have to take it to extremes and make other Feminist look like man hating Women.
" We need more videos of cat's playing the piano on the internet" - My art professor.

"Criticism is easier to take when you realize that the only people who aren't criticized are those who don't take risks." - Donald Trump

Officially Mrs. 16Kadams 8-30-16
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 10:10:39 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/7/2015 9:32:04 PM, Rosalie wrote:
At 12/7/2015 9:26:12 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 12/7/2015 9:11:37 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/7/2015 8:35:56 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 12/7/2015 8:28:38 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 12/7/2015 7:33:42 PM, Zarroette wrote:
There is nothing more aggravating than hearing a late teens - early twenties, ditzy girl ramble about how gender roles are entirely a social construct, or how the wage-gap between the sexes exists because women are oppressed. Both have been debunked to the point of ad nauseam, and spending valuable mental resources addressing this trite is a burden to anyone engaged in this.

In light of this, this is how you should deal with a feminist:

1. Ignore them

2. If 1. isn't possible, laugh and/or mock them with a dismissive comment. Repeat until 1. is possible

There you have it. You never engage these spoiled-children in debate, because they operate based on their feelings and the toxins of their ideology, rather than sustained reason. If you doubt otherwise, attempt to engage them and watch them flee when you show substantial proof of their errors.

Don't waste your time -- ignore feminists.

The only feminists I dislike are those who talk about men in the same way racists talk about black people. "They are overrepresented in crimes! It must be something strange about them!" which is quite contradictory x1000 since feminism and anti-racism almost always go hand-in-hand.

Maybe you've heard the "it is good to hate men because hatred against men doesn't do anything!"?

...which is so idiotic that I can't find words. Does the world become a better place by replacing hatred with hatred? I don't know how to deal with that kind of feminists. Either the case with them is

1. They are using these rhetorics in order to provoke people or make people start a discussion - solution: Ignore. There are better ways of starting discussions than using harsh rhetorics.
2. They are using these rhetorics because they actually think it's a good strategy - solution: Expose their double standards, tell them that their hatred makes them no better than Hitler

Does it really matter? If a 4 year-old were to tell you, "I want lots of lots of candy because it's really yummy," do you explain to the child the effect of glucose, only to have the child say, "but I really want it!"-, and then you continue with a thorough explanation as to why whilst yes, it is yummy, it can cause large problems to your teeth, only to have the child cry and stamp about, to which you... etc...

You see the problem? Who cares what the child thinks?

Well, there is good aspects of feminism too.

I agree.

Without Feminism-

Women wouldn't be able to vote.
Women wouldn't be able to go to school.
Genital Mutilation would be legal everywhere.

May you specify on genital mutilation? Mutilation of one's genitals is legal in the US and many other places.

It's sad though that some Feminist have to take it to extremes and make other Feminist look like man hating Women.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 10:24:59 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/7/2015 9:26:12 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 12/7/2015 9:11:37 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/7/2015 8:35:56 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 12/7/2015 8:28:38 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 12/7/2015 7:33:42 PM, Zarroette wrote:
There is nothing more aggravating than hearing a late teens - early twenties, ditzy girl ramble about how gender roles are entirely a social construct, or how the wage-gap between the sexes exists because women are oppressed. Both have been debunked to the point of ad nauseam, and spending valuable mental resources addressing this trite is a burden to anyone engaged in this.

In light of this, this is how you should deal with a feminist:

1. Ignore them

2. If 1. isn't possible, laugh and/or mock them with a dismissive comment. Repeat until 1. is possible

There you have it. You never engage these spoiled-children in debate, because they operate based on their feelings and the toxins of their ideology, rather than sustained reason. If you doubt otherwise, attempt to engage them and watch them flee when you show substantial proof of their errors.

Don't waste your time -- ignore feminists.

The only feminists I dislike are those who talk about men in the same way racists talk about black people. "They are overrepresented in crimes! It must be something strange about them!" which is quite contradictory x1000 since feminism and anti-racism almost always go hand-in-hand.

Maybe you've heard the "it is good to hate men because hatred against men doesn't do anything!"?

...which is so idiotic that I can't find words. Does the world become a better place by replacing hatred with hatred? I don't know how to deal with that kind of feminists. Either the case with them is

1. They are using these rhetorics in order to provoke people or make people start a discussion - solution: Ignore. There are better ways of starting discussions than using harsh rhetorics.
2. They are using these rhetorics because they actually think it's a good strategy - solution: Expose their double standards, tell them that their hatred makes them no better than Hitler

Does it really matter? If a 4 year-old were to tell you, "I want lots of lots of candy because it's really yummy," do you explain to the child the effect of glucose, only to have the child say, "but I really want it!"-, and then you continue with a thorough explanation as to why whilst yes, it is yummy, it can cause large problems to your teeth, only to have the child cry and stamp about, to which you... etc...

You see the problem? Who cares what the child thinks?

Well, there is good aspects of feminism too.

I disagree whole-heartedly. As common counter-arguments:

Allowing women to vote is dreadful (they have in-group bias and, generally, prefer welfare-states). Mind you, young men shouldn't be allowed to vote, either.

Allowing women into schools is a complicated issue. On one hand, if women won't make use of the education, then it's wasted money. On the other hand, being educated helps women make better decisions, even if they're only around the house. Besides, attributing this to feminism, rather than merely Women's rights activists, is a bridge required to be built.

Genital Mutilation still occurs in boys. Besides, "genital mutilation" might be good for women, if it prevents them from being promiscuous (I'm not supporting this argument, merely suggesting it). And, again, I've yet to see evidence that "feminism" brought about this.

All feminism is bad; some feminism is worse than others. Feminism is about female supremacy, and in more extreme forms, the overt oppression of men. Feminism is societal decay in action.
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 10:30:55 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
Only the rude, close-minded, and preachy ones. If somebody is polite, considerate, and checks their facts, then they shouldn't be turned away because of their views.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 10:33:51 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/7/2015 10:30:55 PM, SM2 wrote:
Only the rude, close-minded, and preachy ones. If somebody is polite, considerate, and checks their facts, then they shouldn't be turned away because of their views.

If they did any of this, they wouldn't be feminists.
Rosalie
Posts: 4,605
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 10:40:26 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/7/2015 10:30:55 PM, SM2 wrote:
Only the rude, close-minded, and preachy ones. If somebody is polite, considerate, and checks their facts, then they shouldn't be turned away because of their views.

Like me :)
" We need more videos of cat's playing the piano on the internet" - My art professor.

"Criticism is easier to take when you realize that the only people who aren't criticized are those who don't take risks." - Donald Trump

Officially Mrs. 16Kadams 8-30-16
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 10:40:41 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/7/2015 10:33:51 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/7/2015 10:30:55 PM, SM2 wrote:
Only the rude, close-minded, and preachy ones. If somebody is polite, considerate, and checks their facts, then they shouldn't be turned away because of their views.

If they did any of this, they wouldn't be feminists.

Christina Hoff Sommers - polite, considerate, and runs a YouTube series that debunks dodgy feminist claims (The Factual Feminist). She still claims to be a feminist, and certainly fits the basic definition.

Emma Watson - I don't follow her, so I don't know if she checks her facts, but she's definitely polite and considerate. She's also a feminist.

Most feminists are not of the man-hating variety, just as most conservatives don't wish death upon Muslims.
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 10:42:21 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/7/2015 10:24:59 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/7/2015 9:26:12 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 12/7/2015 9:11:37 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/7/2015 8:35:56 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 12/7/2015 8:28:38 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 12/7/2015 7:33:42 PM, Zarroette wrote:
There is nothing more aggravating than hearing a late teens - early twenties, ditzy girl ramble about how gender roles are entirely a social construct, or how the wage-gap between the sexes exists because women are oppressed. Both have been debunked to the point of ad nauseam, and spending valuable mental resources addressing this trite is a burden to anyone engaged in this.

In light of this, this is how you should deal with a feminist:

1. Ignore them

2. If 1. isn't possible, laugh and/or mock them with a dismissive comment. Repeat until 1. is possible

There you have it. You never engage these spoiled-children in debate, because they operate based on their feelings and the toxins of their ideology, rather than sustained reason. If you doubt otherwise, attempt to engage them and watch them flee when you show substantial proof of their errors.

Don't waste your time -- ignore feminists.

The only feminists I dislike are those who talk about men in the same way racists talk about black people. "They are overrepresented in crimes! It must be something strange about them!" which is quite contradictory x1000 since feminism and anti-racism almost always go hand-in-hand.

Maybe you've heard the "it is good to hate men because hatred against men doesn't do anything!"?

...which is so idiotic that I can't find words. Does the world become a better place by replacing hatred with hatred? I don't know how to deal with that kind of feminists. Either the case with them is

1. They are using these rhetorics in order to provoke people or make people start a discussion - solution: Ignore. There are better ways of starting discussions than using harsh rhetorics.
2. They are using these rhetorics because they actually think it's a good strategy - solution: Expose their double standards, tell them that their hatred makes them no better than Hitler

Does it really matter? If a 4 year-old were to tell you, "I want lots of lots of candy because it's really yummy," do you explain to the child the effect of glucose, only to have the child say, "but I really want it!"-, and then you continue with a thorough explanation as to why whilst yes, it is yummy, it can cause large problems to your teeth, only to have the child cry and stamp about, to which you... etc...

You see the problem? Who cares what the child thinks?

Well, there is good aspects of feminism too.

I disagree whole-heartedly. As common counter-arguments:

Allowing women to vote is dreadful (they have in-group bias and, generally, prefer welfare-states). Mind you, young men shouldn't be allowed to vote, either.

Interesting to hear this from a girl :P however, it's not fair to generalize like you do. How should the age limit for men be according to you, in order to vote?

Allowing women into schools is a complicated issue. On one hand, if women won't make use of the education, then it's wasted money. On the other hand, being educated helps women make better decisions, even if they're only around the house. Besides, attributing this to feminism, rather than merely Women's rights activists, is a bridge required to be built.

Why wouldn't the woman make use of the education and why would only women be the only ones wasting education?

Genital Mutilation still occurs in boys. Besides, "genital mutilation" might be good for women, if it prevents them from being promiscuous (I'm not supporting this argument, merely suggesting it). And, again, I've yet to see evidence that "feminism" brought about this.

Promiscuity is only bad if the girl, or the boy, is spreading STDs or if they break hearts on purpose.

All feminism is bad; some feminism is worse than others. Feminism is about female supremacy, and in more extreme forms, the overt oppression of men. Feminism is societal decay in action.

I haven't heard of those wanting female supremacy, they surely exist though. There is a big number of them though who regard men like racists regard black people, and these want equality, but a society where men should be regarded slightly mentally handicapped. Like some racists then, "OK men could live side to side with us but we'd better keep a good eye on them".
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 10:43:15 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/7/2015 10:40:41 PM, SM2 wrote:
At 12/7/2015 10:33:51 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/7/2015 10:30:55 PM, SM2 wrote:
Only the rude, close-minded, and preachy ones. If somebody is polite, considerate, and checks their facts, then they shouldn't be turned away because of their views.

If they did any of this, they wouldn't be feminists.

Christina Hoff Sommers - polite, considerate, and runs a YouTube series that debunks dodgy feminist claims (The Factual Feminist). She still claims to be a feminist, and certainly fits the basic definition.

Emma Watson - I don't follow her, so I don't know if she checks her facts, but she's definitely polite and considerate. She's also a feminist.

Most feminists are not of the man-hating variety, just as most conservatives don't wish death upon Muslims.

They're only being polite for show. Off the top of my head, the HeforShe campaign that Emma Watson was in, was basically a massive 'men, stop being wusses and accept feminism' -- hardly "polite" or "considerate".
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 10:47:32 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/7/2015 10:43:15 PM, Zarroette wrote:
They're only being polite for show.

Are you sure this isn't prejudice talking?

Off the top of my head, the HeforShe campaign that Emma Watson was in, was basically a massive 'men, stop being wusses and accept feminism' -- hardly "polite" or "considerate".

Like I said, I don't follow Emma Watson.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 10:53:56 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/7/2015 10:42:21 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 12/7/2015 10:24:59 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/7/2015 9:26:12 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 12/7/2015 9:11:37 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/7/2015 8:35:56 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 12/7/2015 8:28:38 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 12/7/2015 7:33:42 PM, Zarroette wrote:
There is nothing more aggravating than hearing a late teens - early twenties, ditzy girl ramble about how gender roles are entirely a social construct, or how the wage-gap between the sexes exists because women are oppressed. Both have been debunked to the point of ad nauseam, and spending valuable mental resources addressing this trite is a burden to anyone engaged in this.

In light of this, this is how you should deal with a feminist:

1. Ignore them

2. If 1. isn't possible, laugh and/or mock them with a dismissive comment. Repeat until 1. is possible

There you have it. You never engage these spoiled-children in debate, because they operate based on their feelings and the toxins of their ideology, rather than sustained reason. If you doubt otherwise, attempt to engage them and watch them flee when you show substantial proof of their errors.

Don't waste your time -- ignore feminists.

The only feminists I dislike are those who talk about men in the same way racists talk about black people. "They are overrepresented in crimes! It must be something strange about them!" which is quite contradictory x1000 since feminism and anti-racism almost always go hand-in-hand.

Maybe you've heard the "it is good to hate men because hatred against men doesn't do anything!"?

...which is so idiotic that I can't find words. Does the world become a better place by replacing hatred with hatred? I don't know how to deal with that kind of feminists. Either the case with them is

1. They are using these rhetorics in order to provoke people or make people start a discussion - solution: Ignore. There are better ways of starting discussions than using harsh rhetorics.
2. They are using these rhetorics because they actually think it's a good strategy - solution: Expose their double standards, tell them that their hatred makes them no better than Hitler

Does it really matter? If a 4 year-old were to tell you, "I want lots of lots of candy because it's really yummy," do you explain to the child the effect of glucose, only to have the child say, "but I really want it!"-, and then you continue with a thorough explanation as to why whilst yes, it is yummy, it can cause large problems to your teeth, only to have the child cry and stamp about, to which you... etc...

You see the problem? Who cares what the child thinks?

Well, there is good aspects of feminism too.

I disagree whole-heartedly. As common counter-arguments:

Allowing women to vote is dreadful (they have in-group bias and, generally, prefer welfare-states). Mind you, young men shouldn't be allowed to vote, either.

Interesting to hear this from a girl :P

I assure you that it's based on factual representation, rather than mere feelings.

however, it's not fair to generalize like you do.

When dealing with macro-politics, it is necessary to generalise.

How should the age limit for men be according to you, in order to vote?

I think 30 would be a minimum. Moreover, 30 year old men should be able to vote.


Allowing women into schools is a complicated issue. On one hand, if women won't make use of the education, then it's wasted money. On the other hand, being educated helps women make better decisions, even if they're only around the house. Besides, attributing this to feminism, rather than merely Women's rights activists, is a bridge required to be built.

Why wouldn't the woman make use of the education and why would only women be the only ones wasting education?

For example, it is well-known (if need be, I can regather evidence) that women doctors often do not pay for their exorbitant education costs (as they are subsidised by the government). Approximately, on average, women doctors work for 6 years, before they decide to have children.

As for the latter question, due women having more personal resources in child-rearing, they are unable to spread personal resources to other facets of their lives, unlike men can (i.e. women take 9 months to procreate; men, potentially, 30 seconds).


Genital Mutilation still occurs in boys. Besides, "genital mutilation" might be good for women, if it prevents them from being promiscuous (I'm not supporting this argument, merely suggesting it). And, again, I've yet to see evidence that "feminism" brought about this.

Promiscuity is only bad if the girl, or the boy, is spreading STDs or if they break hearts on purpose.

Nonsense. Promiscuous women are statistically have a far greater proclivity towards infidelity, which makes them dreadful candidates for child-rearing.


All feminism is bad; some feminism is worse than others. Feminism is about female supremacy, and in more extreme forms, the overt oppression of men. Feminism is societal decay in action.

I haven't heard of those wanting female supremacy, they surely exist though.

Actions speak louder than words -- read between the lines.

There is a big number of them though who regard men like racists regard black people, and these want equality, but a society where men should be regarded slightly mentally handicapped. Like some racists then, "OK men could live side to side with us but we'd better keep a good eye on them".

This is a different issue; racism has genetic roots.
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 11:15:33 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/7/2015 10:53:56 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/7/2015 10:42:21 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 12/7/2015 10:24:59 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/7/2015 9:26:12 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 12/7/2015 9:11:37 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/7/2015 8:35:56 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 12/7/2015 8:28:38 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 12/7/2015 7:33:42 PM, Zarroette wrote:
There is nothing more aggravating than hearing a late teens - early twenties, ditzy girl ramble about how gender roles are entirely a social construct, or how the wage-gap between the sexes exists because women are oppressed. Both have been debunked to the point of ad nauseam, and spending valuable mental resources addressing this trite is a burden to anyone engaged in this.

In light of this, this is how you should deal with a feminist:

1. Ignore them

2. If 1. isn't possible, laugh and/or mock them with a dismissive comment. Repeat until 1. is possible

There you have it. You never engage these spoiled-children in debate, because they operate based on their feelings and the toxins of their ideology, rather than sustained reason. If you doubt otherwise, attempt to engage them and watch them flee when you show substantial proof of their errors.

Don't waste your time -- ignore feminists.

The only feminists I dislike are those who talk about men in the same way racists talk about black people. "They are overrepresented in crimes! It must be something strange about them!" which is quite contradictory x1000 since feminism and anti-racism almost always go hand-in-hand.

Maybe you've heard the "it is good to hate men because hatred against men doesn't do anything!"?

...which is so idiotic that I can't find words. Does the world become a better place by replacing hatred with hatred? I don't know how to deal with that kind of feminists. Either the case with them is

1. They are using these rhetorics in order to provoke people or make people start a discussion - solution: Ignore. There are better ways of starting discussions than using harsh rhetorics.
2. They are using these rhetorics because they actually think it's a good strategy - solution: Expose their double standards, tell them that their hatred makes them no better than Hitler

Does it really matter? If a 4 year-old were to tell you, "I want lots of lots of candy because it's really yummy," do you explain to the child the effect of glucose, only to have the child say, "but I really want it!"-, and then you continue with a thorough explanation as to why whilst yes, it is yummy, it can cause large problems to your teeth, only to have the child cry and stamp about, to which you... etc...

You see the problem? Who cares what the child thinks?

Well, there is good aspects of feminism too.

I disagree whole-heartedly. As common counter-arguments:

Allowing women to vote is dreadful (they have in-group bias and, generally, prefer welfare-states). Mind you, young men shouldn't be allowed to vote, either.

Interesting to hear this from a girl :P

I assure you that it's based on factual representation, rather than mere feelings.

however, it's not fair to generalize like you do.

When dealing with macro-politics, it is necessary to generalise.

How should the age limit for men be according to you, in order to vote?

I think 30 would be a minimum. Moreover, 30 year old men should be able to vote.


Allowing women into schools is a complicated issue. On one hand, if women won't make use of the education, then it's wasted money. On the other hand, being educated helps women make better decisions, even if they're only around the house. Besides, attributing this to feminism, rather than merely Women's rights activists, is a bridge required to be built.

Why wouldn't the woman make use of the education and why would only women be the only ones wasting education?

For example, it is well-known (if need be, I can regather evidence) that women doctors often do not pay for their exorbitant education costs (as they are subsidised by the government). Approximately, on average, women doctors work for 6 years, before they decide to have children.

As for the latter question, due women having more personal resources in child-rearing, they are unable to spread personal resources to other facets of their lives, unlike men can (i.e. women take 9 months to procreate; men, potentially, 30 seconds).


Genital Mutilation still occurs in boys. Besides, "genital mutilation" might be good for women, if it prevents them from being promiscuous (I'm not supporting this argument, merely suggesting it). And, again, I've yet to see evidence that "feminism" brought about this.

Promiscuity is only bad if the girl, or the boy, is spreading STDs or if they break hearts on purpose.

Nonsense. Promiscuous women are statistically have a far greater proclivity towards infidelity, which makes them dreadful candidates for child-rearing.

How could having had many sex partners lead to greater proclivity towards infidelity? That could possibly only be explained to that this woman has more men in her experimental life to compare with, thus be questioning if her husband is the best one she has ever had. If she wouldn't have had more than one man throughout her life, she wouldn't have anything to compare with. Same would go for men.

Despite what many religious people say, one is not obliged to have children. Also not all women want relationships or family lives so this is unfair to say.

And also, correlation does not necessarily equal causation. If that were the case, then we could just as well see something of worth in that the number of people who drowned by falling into a swimming-pool correlates with the number of films Nicolas Cage appeared in. http://www.tylervigen.com...

There were fewer cases of infidelity in the past when women more or less weren't allowed to have more than one man throughout her life. The reason why infidelity seldom happened back then was although probably that the societies in the past pretty much would brandmark her as an eternal outcast if that would happen, which scared the woman enough for refraining from doing it. And that brandmarking doesn't really happen today, at least not in most Western countries.

There is a big number of them though who regard men like racists regard black people, and these want equality, but a society where men should be regarded slightly mentally handicapped. Like some racists then, "OK men could live side to side with us but we'd better keep a good eye on them".

This is a different issue; racism has genetic roots.

Same rhetorics still. "Men are higher up in the society, it's only good to hate them then!!!!" should never be an excuse, unregarding how much they want it to look like that. Those far-left rhetorics are to be located in the garbage can.
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 1:53:39 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/7/2015 10:24:59 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/7/2015 9:26:12 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 12/7/2015 9:11:37 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/7/2015 8:35:56 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 12/7/2015 8:28:38 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 12/7/2015 7:33:42 PM, Zarroette wrote:
There is nothing more aggravating than hearing a late teens - early twenties, ditzy girl ramble about how gender roles are entirely a social construct, or how the wage-gap between the sexes exists because women are oppressed. Both have been debunked to the point of ad nauseam, and spending valuable mental resources addressing this trite is a burden to anyone engaged in this.

In light of this, this is how you should deal with a feminist:

1. Ignore them

2. If 1. isn't possible, laugh and/or mock them with a dismissive comment. Repeat until 1. is possible

There you have it. You never engage these spoiled-children in debate, because they operate based on their feelings and the toxins of their ideology, rather than sustained reason. If you doubt otherwise, attempt to engage them and watch them flee when you show substantial proof of their errors.

Don't waste your time -- ignore feminists.

The only feminists I dislike are those who talk about men in the same way racists talk about black people. "They are overrepresented in crimes! It must be something strange about them!" which is quite contradictory x1000 since feminism and anti-racism almost always go hand-in-hand.

Maybe you've heard the "it is good to hate men because hatred against men doesn't do anything!"?

...which is so idiotic that I can't find words. Does the world become a better place by replacing hatred with hatred? I don't know how to deal with that kind of feminists. Either the case with them is

1. They are using these rhetorics in order to provoke people or make people start a discussion - solution: Ignore. There are better ways of starting discussions than using harsh rhetorics.
2. They are using these rhetorics because they actually think it's a good strategy - solution: Expose their double standards, tell them that their hatred makes them no better than Hitler

Does it really matter? If a 4 year-old were to tell you, "I want lots of lots of candy because it's really yummy," do you explain to the child the effect of glucose, only to have the child say, "but I really want it!"-, and then you continue with a thorough explanation as to why whilst yes, it is yummy, it can cause large problems to your teeth, only to have the child cry and stamp about, to which you... etc...

You see the problem? Who cares what the child thinks?

Well, there is good aspects of feminism too.

I disagree whole-heartedly. As common counter-arguments:

Allowing women to vote is dreadful (they have in-group bias and, generally, prefer welfare-states). Mind you, young men shouldn't be allowed to vote, either.

So you want to remove all female suffrage?


Allowing women into schools is a complicated issue. On one hand, if women won't make use of the education, then it's wasted money. On the other hand, being educated helps women make better decisions, even if they're only around the house. Besides, attributing this to feminism, rather than merely Women's rights activists, is a bridge required to be built.

"Allowing men into schools is a complicated issue. On one hand, if men won't make use of the education, it's wasted money. On the other hand, being educated helps men make better decisions, even if they're only around the house."


Genital Mutilation still occurs in boys. Besides, "genital mutilation" might be good for women, if it prevents them from being promiscuous (I'm not supporting this argument, merely suggesting it). And, again, I've yet to see evidence that "feminism" brought about this.

Non-consensual mutilation?


All feminism is bad; some feminism is worse than others. Feminism is about female supremacy, and in more extreme forms, the overt oppression of men. Feminism is societal decay in action.

That depends on the definition of feminism, tbh. In a place like northwest Pakistan was under the Taliban, there were some basic women's rights missing, and fighting for them could be considered "feminism," though it could also simply be considered fighting for human rights that have been denied to a group of people. Around a few centuries back, forced female suicide -- called suttee -- was prevalent in India and even legal, till abolished by the "feminist" Ram Mohun Roy; but his view of feminism was merely abolishing forced female suicide, infanticide, etc.

"Feminism" is a flexible term.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 1:55:29 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/7/2015 10:53:56 PM, Zarroette wrote:
This is a different issue; racism has genetic roots.

That doesn't justify it. It's a fallacy of appeal to nature. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 1:58:31 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/7/2015 7:33:42 PM, Zarroette wrote:
There is nothing more aggravating than hearing a late teens - early twenties, ditzy girl ramble about how gender roles are entirely a social construct, or how the wage-gap between the sexes exists because women are oppressed.

I have a classmate who thinks she ought to be afforded special privileges being a girl, since women are "so oppressed." Her personality is like yours, though, lol.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 2:01:42 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/8/2015 1:55:29 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 12/7/2015 10:53:56 PM, Zarroette wrote:
This is a different issue; racism has genetic roots.

That doesn't justify it. It's a fallacy of appeal to nature. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]

I hope you enjoy attempting to slice the primitive parts of our brains, in order to remove the regions controlling racism. That'll solve the problem (by killing everyone).
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 2:02:02 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/8/2015 1:53:39 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 12/7/2015 10:24:59 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Allowing women to vote is dreadful (they have in-group bias and, generally, prefer welfare-states). Mind you, young men shouldn't be allowed to vote, either.

So you want to remove all female suffrage?

I would *love* to see her debating that.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 2:02:36 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/8/2015 2:01:42 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/8/2015 1:55:29 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 12/7/2015 10:53:56 PM, Zarroette wrote:
This is a different issue; racism has genetic roots.

That doesn't justify it. It's a fallacy of appeal to nature. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]

I hope you enjoy attempting to slice the primitive parts of our brains, in order to remove the regions controlling racism. That'll solve the problem (by killing everyone).

Strawman.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 2:03:31 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/8/2015 2:02:36 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 12/8/2015 2:01:42 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/8/2015 1:55:29 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 12/7/2015 10:53:56 PM, Zarroette wrote:
This is a different issue; racism has genetic roots.

That doesn't justify it. It's a fallacy of appeal to nature. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]

I hope you enjoy attempting to slice the primitive parts of our brains, in order to remove the regions controlling racism. That'll solve the problem (by killing everyone).

Strawman.

How do you suppose we remove it, then, since, in your mind, we cannot "justify" it?
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 2:05:12 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/8/2015 1:58:31 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 12/7/2015 7:33:42 PM, Zarroette wrote:
There is nothing more aggravating than hearing a late teens - early twenties, ditzy girl ramble about how gender roles are entirely a social construct, or how the wage-gap between the sexes exists because women are oppressed.

I have a classmate who thinks she ought to be afforded special privileges being a girl, since women are "so oppressed." Her personality is like yours, though, lol.

I live with one of those girls. She demands money with her right hand, whilst flipping off her benefactors with her left. Her "feminism" is just an excuse to be self-absorbed.
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 2:06:57 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/8/2015 2:03:31 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/8/2015 2:02:36 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 12/8/2015 2:01:42 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/8/2015 1:55:29 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 12/7/2015 10:53:56 PM, Zarroette wrote:
This is a different issue; racism has genetic roots.

That doesn't justify it. It's a fallacy of appeal to nature. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]

I hope you enjoy attempting to slice the primitive parts of our brains, in order to remove the regions controlling racism. That'll solve the problem (by killing everyone).

Strawman.

How do you suppose we remove it, then, since, in your mind, we cannot "justify" it?

Humans aren't racist, we're tribal. We could just as easily draw those tribal boundaries based on football teams.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 2:10:00 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/8/2015 2:06:57 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 12/8/2015 2:03:31 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/8/2015 2:02:36 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 12/8/2015 2:01:42 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/8/2015 1:55:29 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 12/7/2015 10:53:56 PM, Zarroette wrote:
This is a different issue; racism has genetic roots.

That doesn't justify it. It's a fallacy of appeal to nature. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]

I hope you enjoy attempting to slice the primitive parts of our brains, in order to remove the regions controlling racism. That'll solve the problem (by killing everyone).

Strawman.

How do you suppose we remove it, then, since, in your mind, we cannot "justify" it?

Humans aren't racist, we're tribal. We could just as easily draw those tribal boundaries based on football teams.

The two are not mutually exclusive.
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 2:11:30 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/8/2015 2:03:31 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/8/2015 2:02:36 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 12/8/2015 2:01:42 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/8/2015 1:55:29 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 12/7/2015 10:53:56 PM, Zarroette wrote:
This is a different issue; racism has genetic roots.

That doesn't justify it. It's a fallacy of appeal to nature. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]

I hope you enjoy attempting to slice the primitive parts of our brains, in order to remove the regions controlling racism. That'll solve the problem (by killing everyone).

Strawman.

How do you suppose we remove it, then, since, in your mind, we cannot "justify" it?

I never said we cannot justify it . . . I said *your argument* doesn't justify it.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 2:13:10 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/8/2015 2:11:30 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 12/8/2015 2:03:31 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/8/2015 2:02:36 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 12/8/2015 2:01:42 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/8/2015 1:55:29 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 12/7/2015 10:53:56 PM, Zarroette wrote:
This is a different issue; racism has genetic roots.

That doesn't justify it. It's a fallacy of appeal to nature. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]

I hope you enjoy attempting to slice the primitive parts of our brains, in order to remove the regions controlling racism. That'll solve the problem (by killing everyone).

Strawman.

How do you suppose we remove it, then, since, in your mind, we cannot "justify" it?

I never said we cannot justify it . . . I said *your argument* doesn't justify it.

Yes. NOW, I'm asking *you* to propose a solution, since in your mind, it isn't justifiable. There is no use in saying that something isn't justifiable (in all honesty, a rather pointless remark), if there is no plan to enact change.
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 2:17:03 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/8/2015 2:13:10 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/8/2015 2:11:30 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 12/8/2015 2:03:31 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/8/2015 2:02:36 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 12/8/2015 2:01:42 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/8/2015 1:55:29 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 12/7/2015 10:53:56 PM, Zarroette wrote:
This is a different issue; racism has genetic roots.

That doesn't justify it. It's a fallacy of appeal to nature. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]

I hope you enjoy attempting to slice the primitive parts of our brains, in order to remove the regions controlling racism. That'll solve the problem (by killing everyone).

Strawman.

How do you suppose we remove it, then, since, in your mind, we cannot "justify" it?

I never said we cannot justify it . . . I said *your argument* doesn't justify it.

Yes. NOW, I'm asking *you* to propose a solution, since in your mind, it isn't justifiable. There is no use in saying that something isn't justifiable (in all honesty, a rather pointless remark), if there is no plan to enact change.

I never said it isn't justifiable . . . all I said is that your argument specifically doesn't justify it. There could be other arguments that do. You said "in your mind, we cannot 'justify it' " -- this is a strawman; it *can be justifiable,* only your argument fails to do so.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass