By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
SuaveSocialist on 28 June 2016
Edit Thread
setsunatenshi said:
SuaveSocialist said:

1.  If one identifies as a feminist and advocate female supremacy, one is either lying or wrong----just as one who advocates violence as a means to an end is not a pacifist, no matter how much one would insist whilst doing the Frank Castle all over the neighborhood.  Words mean things, and the meaning exists independently of people misusing them.
2.  Like I said, it is the degree of its existence to which where it can be argued for and against; arguing its existence as feminists define it is not incorrect in of itself and your point here was irrelevant in its entirety.
3.  That is not what I said.  I said it would fall short of being achieved if the gender aspect falls short, just as it would falll short of being achieved if any other aspect you've mentioned falls short.  For an egalitarian society to exist, all must pursued---including feminism.  Without, an egalitarian state cannot exist.
4.  That's what feminism is.  Dictionary, dude.  Someone else dug it up (in an inept attempt to argue against me) and proved it.  You're simply denying reality---but reality exists whether you accept it or not.  Your entire position is self-defeating considering the very language we're using demonstrably refutes it.

1- i am not the arbitrer of who is the true feminist, nor it's my job to discern between all the people who call themselves feminists. as several people have pointed out, the most vocal so called representatives of feminism today are pretty objectionable people with ideas I am absolutely against. that is who we are all arguing against. if you somehow believe these people don't represent you, then go and argue against them, not us.

2- please point to specific laws that are keeping women opressed in western developed societies nowadays in comparison to men. i don't care about feelings on the subject, only facts. as I said before, I could point to specific laws that discriminate in favor of women. can't think of a single one that does the exact opposite.

3- i meant a general you, not you specifically. if we both agree people should be treated fairly, no matter what gender, race, etc, then why would you need another word so say you are an egalitarian? or a humanist? feminism starts from the principle that women are somehow begining at an inferiority stage and trying to reach equality. I do not agree with this statement at all, which makes the concept of feminism and that word meaningless in today's western societies.

4- you are trying to do what's called the 'argument from definition'. not sure you did it intentionally or not, but I don't fall into such basic logic fallacies. there's feminism as a word (as it was conceived, a product of it's time) and there's feminism as a movement. the actions of current proponents of feminism don't match the definition you want to attach to. Where in the definition of National + Socialism is there anything about gas chambers and genocide? I argue against the actions of the current 'popular' feminists, not against dictionaries.

1.  It IS your job to know these things when YOU are trying to argue them.  You have been informed; what you do with the facts is your prerogative--even if that means your continued exercise of illogic and cognitive dissonance.  As it stands, you've gotten the very basics completely wrong and that sends a message that you know nothing about the subject--you will only find solidarity with the uninformed.

2.  No, your entire point here was proven irrelevant and it shall be treated as such.

3.  Because the two are not equal; a feminist can be racist and vice versa.  To be Egalitarian, one must strive for the sum of its parts and feminism is but one part.  A necessary one but one nonetheless.

4.  Actually, you have fallen into basic fallacy.  You have tried to assign a new meaning to concepts that is incompatible with those concepts in an irrational attempt to argue against them.  Your aim was to defeat your new meaning to assert your position against the actual concept.  CLASSIC STRAWMAN.  Failing that, you are now erroneously trying to form a FALLACY FALLACY because you'd rather be illogical than admit you were throwing around the concept of Feminism completely incorrectly.  It was not a fallacy to make this known to you.

 

Finally: Godwin's Law.  GG.  Enjoy your cognitive dissonance.