Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That was one guy, 2 posts, 40 pages ago. Yeah let me go put my vagina hat on he must be starting some sort of a movement or something.
He made far more than two posts and he's here today, if you mean Hightower. Otherwise....why are you talking about the pink hats? I don't have one. No one in here has said they owned one. No one in here has even mentioned any of the radical feminist talking points. Just very basic ones like "Hey, I'd like to vote and own property and choose how my life goes." Yet we're being painted as flailing radicals. This is why it's hard to take much of the arguments against feminism in here seriously.
An argument against a subset of P can be used as a premise in an argument against P as a whole.
And I replied:
It can be done, but that doesn't mean it will be done successfully.
If you need that explained to you, okay.
An argument against a subset of P can be used as a premise in an argument against P as a whole, however that strategy doesn't guarantee success. If the argument against the subset of P is flawed, that strategy will fail. If the the argument depends on a parity between the subset and P that cannot be shown, that strategy will fail.
The amount of babbling nonsense by feminists in this thread is living proof that feminism is unworkable.
And yet each feminist here is a productive member of society. So the problem appears to be more with your inability (or lack of desire) to understand basic speech/typing patterns of people you disagree with. Not with feminism being supposedly unworkable and incompatible with a self-sustaining civilization.
So I ask again, in all seriousness:
How is feminism unworkable?
How does feminism contradict scientifically verifiable biological differences? What are these scientifically verifiable biological differences?
And how is feminism, in the long term, fundamentally incompatible with a self-sustaining civilization?
He made far more than two posts and he's here today, if you mean Hightower. Otherwise....why are you talking about the pink hats? I don't have one. No one in here has said they owned one. No one in here has even mentioned any of the radical feminist talking points. Just very basic ones like "Hey, I'd like to vote and own property and choose how my life goes." Yet we're being painted as flailing radicals. This is why it's hard to take much of the arguments against feminism in here seriously.
If you don't want to be seen as a flailing radical, then it helps if you stop flailing.
An argument against a subset of P can be used as a premise in an argument against P as a whole.
And I replied:
It can be done, but that doesn't mean it will be done successfully.
If you need that explained to you, okay.
An argument against a subset of P can be used as a premise in an argument against P as a whole, however that strategy doesn't guarantee success. If the argument against the subset of P is flawed, that strategy will fail. If the the argument depends on a parity between the subset and P that cannot be shown, that strategy will fail.
You're conflating logical validity versus soundness.
I am cracking up that people think wearing ***** hats at the Women's March = "radical feminism".
Yeah it's goofy. Nothing radical in this thread. I would consider that more like another discussion that I was in, about an article that was pro abortion. Not just pro choice, pro abortion. The author was making statements like "All young women should get an abortion, period" so they don't miss out on life and break away from being tied down by pregnancy and men or whatever" Stuff something like that. That is more what radical is like and I was arguing against that in there.
This thread truly has been so mild, its appalling that we are being cast as radical. Save your ire for the people who are really out there.
*Shrug* I'm not the one presenting specious arguments. Just refuting them. No flailing involved.
It's a good thing for you we don't having some kind of historic transcript that shows you figuratively flailing around like a spinning top. Oh wait, we do. It's called "the thread".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
