The reason I don't like radical feminists

[Pekka]

I never had a problem with that either. That's why I keep repeating that I think it's OK, and that moderate feminists/those who aren't radical has an issue with this. I'm not saying they shouldn't have an issue with it or that they're wrong.

It was the other part!

[Pekka]

"
I know people who would identify themselves as radical feminists who don't hate men, and I imagine that some people who hate men (I've never encountered anyone like this) wouldn't identify themselves as radical feminists. "

You have 0 arguments here. Absolutely none. You're trying to twist semantics, and you're failing at that as well. You're done.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Pekka]The quantity of these radical feminists is not so important[/q]

But it is. If they are only a small number, why in the world get upset by them? If they can actually impact the political scene, then maybe it is a reason to worry. But otherwise... who cares?

[Pekka]

Imran, whatever. I think that's what you wanted to say. You're coming with this few hundred figure because that would fit what you just said. But there's more than few hundred and if you don't have the capacity to understand it, you're done as well with the non-arguments, just like Ludd is.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Pekka
I never had a problem with that either. That's why I keep repeating that I think it's OK, and that moderate feminists/those who aren't radical has an issue with this. I'm not saying they shouldn't have an issue with it or that they're wrong.

It was the other part!

I can't determine another part to your argument.

I seems to me that you are saying that removing yourself from a roll that is oppressive means that you are making yourself part of the oppressive system if you continue to say anything. That certainly doesn't make sense to me.

[Pekka]

And that's not what I said either.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Pekka
You have 0 arguments here. Absolutely none. You're trying to twist semantics, and you're failing at that as well. You're done.

You sound like Fez. He said something intelligent.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Pekka
And that's not what I said either.

Can anyone tell us what Pekka is talking about?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Yeah, a "good thing" . That's exactly what I'm talking about. Your fantasy that you wanting to have sex with someone is a compliment to them. That they should be priveledged to have sex with you (while pekka later - or coincidedly? - "bashes" them, I may add). This is the mentality of a rapist. Seriously, just do the world a favour and castrate yourself.

So what's the acceptable way for humans to engage in sexual behaviour, if thinking 'they might like to have sex with me' is a rapist's mentality?

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Considering that Sloww thinks Gloria Steinhem is a man hating radical feminist, I think the problem is that its become some sort of ridiculous bugaboo, a bogeyman of sorts, that the numbers of those people are VASTLY overstated.

You just want in Gloria's pants.

[Pekka]

"You can replace "radical feminist" in this thread with "jews" "blacks" or "anglo-saxons" and the meaning of the thread wouldn't really change."

And this shows the stupidity of this poster. Absolutely ridiculous statement right here.

Radical femmies, as I described in the OP, are haters. So, when the cornerstone of that is hating men, it becomes a hate group. Now I don't care if you have friends who describe themselves as radical feminists. If they don't hate men, they don't fit into the description given in the OP and we aren't talkinga bout those people. Get it? Don't insist that that's the people we're talking about. That's simply not true. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

If so, good. So man hating radical femmies, how does your analogue work? It doesn't. If I'm bashing a hate group, and I'm not even talkinga bout anything else than just going through that logic of role taking and at the same tiem giving negative roles to men, well, the CORRECT analogue would be that I just described racists or other hate groups. Groups who stereotype people and hate them whole bunch of people. See? Just like RADICAL FEMINISTS!

So your Godwin isn't working, since it would go exactly the other way around. OK, let's replace that with blacks and jews. Then we'd be talking aboit RADICAL black and jews, who think they are superior, and everyone else is ****. In case of jews and blacks, the scope is another race then. So, if a group of radical blacks and jews hate some other race and say everythign is their fault and we hate all of them because they're really all just the same....

are you saying there's a problem when people would bash and say that logic doesn't portray the reality, and even if part of it is true, it still doesn't mean the whole issue is 100% correct or accurate. And they'd still be a hate group.

According to your logic, we shouldn't bash hate groups, becaus ewell that's hating all blacks, all jews, all feminists etc. Your analogue is wrong, you have not had a one single contributing argument here, you're done. You were done, and you're still done.

[Kidlicious]

Nothing wrong with trolling Pekka. But sexist trolling is crap.

[SlowwHand]

Want to do the horizontal mamba with women who want to run things.
I'm onto you.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Want to do the horizontal mamba with women who want to run things.
I'm onto you.

That doesn't offend me. No effect at all.

[Kidlicious]

Like I said, this thread speaks for itself. It's been well established that some people are full of hate. Those people aren't the radical feminists though.

Jeez, as if these people were the real threat in the world .