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.
Well, it's a new Reddit with not many threads to properly suss the climate. Are they just mimicking the name of MGTOW? Will it be as vitriolic and have similar extreme views as presented in the matching Reddit? I see a lot of indications that it is but again, not too much data to go on at this point.
Hating on either gender is not reasonable, though I understand how it can happen to some. Again, all I want really is the freedom for all people to choose their own destiny and have rights. I'm no radical feminist.
Last edited by latimeria; 06-22-2017 at 02:17 AM..
A subset of an idea can be used to posit theories about the idea as a whole, but this one happiness survey is not broad enough in scope to conclusively disprove the notion of the entire idea of gender equality, not even paired with the other premise presented. Still looking for that further exposition in this thread.
It looks better if you say things like this after you've managed to refute it or its relevance. Not so great after you've been schooled on intepretation of peer reviewed literature
It looks better if you say things like this after you've managed to refute it or its relevance. It doesn't look as great after you've been schooled on your basic ability to interpet peer reviewed literature
Uh huh, interpret this 30 year survey in this thread, then, and show how it is successfully and conclusively extrapolated to covering the entire last 200 years or so of gender equality that was comprised of different phases, which would be necessary to serve as proof (I'm asking for proof, not exercises in logic of what could be true) for the original theory.
Still waiting on the third premise and other data as is evidently needed. I can only work with the data presented, and it's not sufficient to explain his original post to any satisfaction.
Perhaps I missed a sentence or so in this massive thread where he said what his motive was beside the one mentioned in that sentence, which would allow me to ascertain what his motive is. (And do share that motive, please). A logical exercise about the entire idea of gender equality being unworkable and so on?
Otherwise, the sentence can also be read as stating what his motive is. Please, I'd love a clarification of what this magical motive actually is. He forgot to include it in that statement or follow up with his real motive in the next sentence, so it's unclear as written.
If you want to understand why people are accusing you of babbling or flailing, this is one of the reasons.
It doesn't follow from saying that "feminism is unworkable" to the idea that "all feminism is harmful for all women". They are two very different sentences.
The first is about whether or not the objectives of feminism can be fulfilled. The second is an absolute claim about the consequences of feminism that no-one has said in this thread. Apart from you.
Uh huh, interpret this 30 year survey in this thread, then, and show how it is successfully and conclusively extrapolated to covering the entire last 200 years or so of gender equality that was comprised of different phases, which would be necessary to serve as proof (I'm asking for proof, not exercises in logic of what could be true) for the original theory.
Still waiting on the third premise and other data as is evidently needed. I can only work with the data presented, and it's not sufficient to explain his original post to any satisfaction.
This was explained to you several posts ago.
Stevenson and Wolfers' study is specific to the third wave, but it's part of an overarching case against feminism in general. Remember all the posts on propositional logic --that you obviously didn't bother to read?
If you want to understand why people are accusing you of babbling or flailing, this is one of the reasons.
It doesn't follow from saying that "feminism is unworkable" to the idea that "all feminism is harmful for all women". They are two very different sentences.
The first is about whether or not the objectives of feminism can be fulfilled. The second is an absolute claim about the consequences of feminism that no-one has said in this thread. Apart from you.
Er, did you even read the sentence from him that I was questioning? That included that idea of harm? He may have been saying it wasn't his motive, but from the sentence structure, it could be absolutely taken either way. I will shy away from the word all, since there are very absolutes in life, sure. What, then, renders it UNWORKABLE enough that it would be beneficial for it to be removed from all women?
Er, did you even read the sentence from him that I was questioning? That included that idea of harm? He may have been saying it wasn't his motive, but from the sentence structure, it could be absolutely taken either way. I will shy away from the word all, since there are very absolutes in life, sure. What, then, renders it UNWORKABLE enough that it would be beneficial for it to be removed from all women?
Where have I said that every aspect of feminism was harmful to all women? I don't see it.
This was explained to you several posts ago.
Stevenson and Wolfers' study is specific to the third wave, but it's part of an overarching case against feminism in general. Remember all the posts on propositional logic --that you obviously didn't bother to read?
Propositional logic requires building blocks. So far I have been given two. Forgive me for staring at them and finding it paltry. Still waiting for the further premises to provide this whole overarching case.
Propositional logic requires building blocks. So far I have been given two. Forgive me for staring at them and finding it paltry. Still waiting for the further premises to provide this whole overarching case.
Again, we've gone over what the concept of an inductive argument is and over things like rules of inference.
Where have I said that every aspect of feminism was harmful to all women? I don't see it.
Where is your third premise and any others? I did step it back a little and retracted all, since there are very few absolutes in life. Still waiting to hear why gender equality should be taken away from the masses.
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.
