The reason I don't like radical feminists

[Pekka]

No I'm not talking to stupid people. That doesn't mean you're one of them.

You're logical errors have already been shown, and you're fighting to survive with "I know your motivations and that's why I know you're really talking about something else".

Like I said, go kill blacks. That's what you really want to do, isn't it? Here's your logic, isn't it fun? I think it's fun. Hey, I can have my way every single time because I just say "NANAANANNANAAA NOOO NOONOOOO". Works for kids, but not adults. Sorry.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Make light of a bad situation. Break the tension.

Take a class in diplomacy bud.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Pekka
No I'm not talking to stupid people. That doesn't mean you're one of them.

You're logical errors have already been shown, and you're fighting to survive with "I know your motivations and that's why I know you're really talking about something else".

Like I said, go kill blacks. That's what you really want to do, isn't it? Here's your logic, isn't it fun? I think it's fun. Hey, I can have my way every single time because I just say "NANAANANNANAAA NOOO NOONOOOO". Works for kids, but not adults. Sorry.

Imagine If I would have started a thread and titled it, "The reason I don't like Finns." Then in the OP I said I don't like Finns because they hate Americans. Later in the thread I explained that I only don't like the Finns who don't like Americans.

Now would anyone fall for that crap and say that I'm not a bigot? I would hope not.

Now you seem to think that you can get an audience here that will cheer for your sexist crap enough that you can be a complete idiot.

[Pekka]

For the Nth time, I said that I mean radical feminists who hates men. It's obvious to any normal minded reader to understand what that means. It is obvious as to what I mean by a radical feminist. NOt to even mention that I mentioned very early that this does not include femnistis in general. I used the term conservative feminist, but I meant moderate. So I also made a distinct separation. It wasn't an accident.

I even explained that I mean hating men means radical feminist in this one... hence the topic and explanation.

It's not a Freudian. DO you even understand that this is a second language for me? So, that's quite a Freudian, so just for your information, I use it as a noun AND adjective at the same time.

Radical feminist to me means someone who hates men. OK? I exaplined it also.

The reason I don't like Finns should be "the reason I don't like radical Finns" or similar. Finn is a nationality, thus it's a whole different category.

So keep your childish NO NONONOO I KNOW WHAT YOU REALLY MEAN crap up, it's not like it'll make you look any smarter. I have this distinct feeling most of us realize you're an idiot.

And I also have a feeling that MOST who read this thread also understood exactly what I mean by radical feminist. Just because you have problems understanding it doesn't mean that it's confusing. You just lack the ability to hack it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Pekka
Radical feminist to me means someone who hates men. OK? I exaplined it also.

Well you are wrong. You really should have stopped after finding out. The fact that you didn't means something.

I reread the OP, and it doesn't read that you hate people who hate men either. It reads that you hate feminism. The way you describe it too doesn't really mean radical feminism either. You seem to hate feminism.

[Riesstiu IV]

[Pekka]

Whatever. I'm glad I'm not paying for your psychoanalysis. Let's just agree to disagree, or you can think that I really hate feminism and also women if that makes you feel good inside. It just doesn't matter to me so much that I'd be willing to waste any more time arguing about this.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Kidicious


These things are most effective when they are subtle. That way you don't even know what you are being taught. Obviously many people are still in the dark.

Unfalsifiable argument alert! Arguments like this inevitably degenerate into the person making this type of assertion accusing any person who tries to refute the argument as being brainwashed by society or similar rhetorical tricks that makes the assertion unfalsifiable.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But, on the other hand, there is some truth to that statement. Social norms do get propagated through schooling and a lot of it is subtle. It's why, say, kids in the Deep South US are far different than those in Paris in terms of how they view things. How much that occurs though... well, no one can be sure.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Pekka
It's great how you just follow the same logic and actually quote it.

Again, nice psychoanalysis there, did you learn that from Freud himself? Also, yes of course you know my motivations, that's because you actually know me. Even though you don't understand half the arguments or your own illogical steps in argumentation, of course you're right.

You're debating yourself here. I'm not interested in your strawmen.

A better term for what he's doing is "socioanalysis," a popular form of pseudo-intellectualism. It's to real sociology what psychoanalysis is to real psychology, both pseudoscientific nonsense.

[Pekka]

Of course it's true. But it doesn't mean that in this particular debate or argument this would be the case, or that it would be a case so that it matters and should be used as an argument against the original argument.

There's already been enough of these "arguments" that are not acceptable. Filled with putting words to other people's mouths and stuff like that. It's simply not acceptable as a form of debate. And yet it continues. That's why this has already degenerated a long time ago.

An example, the next post after this would make a statement that "it degenerated from the OP already", and I'll make my case.

There's plenty of ad hominems here, which is fine by me, but when they're based on things that are close to supernatural and simply not clinically true or even provable here, it's best to leave them out, especially when they have no place in proper debates.

You can't win debate using these type of tactics. You have to show the other side to be wrong in their argument or you have to provide better arguments to the table. No one tried to do that. Instead, people argued about semantics and stuff like that, which are just really childish strategies that try to justify their position that way because it wasn't justifiable using proper debating or argumentation.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Odin


A better term for what he's doing is "socioanalysis," a popular form of pseudo-intellectualism. It's to real sociology what psychoanalysis is to real psychology, both pseudoscientific nonsense.

mkay. Bye bye.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Kidicious


No it's not. It's about you, Slowwy and Lancer, and anyother sexist people here that I've missed naming. This thread says more about you than anyone.

After a few hours away I jump back into the thread at this. Unless I just got missed.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Pekka
You can't win debate using these type of tactics. You have to show the other side to be wrong in their argument or you have to provide better arguments to the table. No one tried to do that. Instead, people argued about semantics and stuff like that, which are just really childish strategies that try to justify their position that way because it wasn't justifiable using proper debating or argumentation.

Pekka, we encourage you to debate feminism. Unfortunately you have shown yourself to not know what it is. You sound like the Grand Wizard at a clan rally. We aren't really debating you. Just calling it like it is.

We would very much like to debate you if you would be serious.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Wezil




After a few hours away I jump back into the thread at this. Unless I just got missed.

No. I would have said your name.