I am sorry, I will try to use something closer to your intellectual level next time. Please tell me how many syllables is your limit.
For baiting you.
You were baiting me? Do you normally screech "You've got a real stick up yer rear, dontchya?" at someone you're 'baiting'? Wow! Then I'd hate to see what you'd say if someone for instance... I dunno... questioned some deeply held prejudice, say.
It's just too tempting to tweak people who are so clearly off balance.
A little push always sends your type spinning and spitting.
Well, quite. For suitable small values of 'your type'.
I will leave it to others to judge which is more 'spitting and spinning', my comments, like:
Do you have any evidence that there are any significant number of people that think that "women are only good for babies" in the way many people in regressive countries (like the US) clearly think that men are only good for work?
or yours, like:
You've got a real stick up yer rear, dontchya? It sure must comfort your pride to believe such things... [men] that think women are only good for babies... [men] tend to think they are good for housework....[men are] used to getting their way without question... denying men their basic right to sex on demand... I had to save this bellyshaker for last... off balance... your type
Actually I owe you an apology, I claimed you didn't answer my original question, which was:
Or is this one of the "blame the victim" excuses used to deny men basic rights?
But you actually replied:
Oh how unfair, the overprivileged are being denied a privilege!
Which, of course, is using your assumption that men are overprivileged as an excuse for denying them basic rights (equal access to education is not a 'privilege'), exactly as I suggested. So you did answer the question after all! Thanks again!
Since you have ignored all of the points I have made, I will add a mini-summary of this discussion. If there is anything you disagree with, please correct, preferably without name-calling.
- - - - - -
Jherek Carnelian posted a comment gloating about men being discriminated against in the Phillipines, and implying they were 'asking for it' by being 'regressive'.
I replied asking 3 questions (below)
Jherek Carnelian responded but failed to answer a single question. He did make a large number of insulting comments, reflecting an offensive stereotype of men as the ones refusing to use condoms (actually it is usually women) and "used to getting their way without question".
He also claimed that I believed that "sex on demand" is a "basic right".
But unfortunately he failed to give any evidence for any of this.
I responded by repeating two of the questions and asking for an apology for the insults.
Jherek Carnelian responded with even more name-calling.
This leaves the following questions unanswered:
Does [Carnelian] have any evidence that there are any significant number of people that think that "women are only good for babies" in the way many people in regressive countries (like the US) clearly think that men are only good for work?
He has now had 3 opportunities to give this evidence and has failed to each time, so the answer is obviously 'no'. ...
is this [the idea that men are over privileged] one of the "blame the victim" excuses used to deny men basic rights?
Carnelian has indirectly admitted this by using it as exactly that excuse, but has failed to answer it directly despite being challenged twice on it. 'silence infers assent' so
You've got a real stick up yer rear, dontchya? It sure must comfort your pride to believe such things.
An ad hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem attack, how... big of you.
You do realise, of course, that as soon as you resort to personal insults you are admitting you have no better reply? I take it from your lack of response you can't answer the point I made, which was: "How would you feel like it if you were say, black,and some hate group sent a white to teach the white people in your village that blacks were 'biologically less valuable' or 'naturally violent' (both tenets of the feminist ideology regarding men)." ?
Nope. Because they tend to think they are good for housework too.
This makes no sense. Thats one non-sequitur and one ad hominem, you must be going through the list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy.
So I take it then you don't have any evidence that there are any significant number of people that think that "women are only good for babies" in the way many people in regressive countries (like the US) clearly think that men are only good for work.
By the way, making an accusation against a person (in this case all the phillipines, if not the third world) without any evidence to back that up is normally considered 'regressive' itself.
Or is this one of the "blame the victim" excuses used to deny men basic rights?
Of course it is, what else could it be? Teaching women that douching after sex does not prevent pregnancy and how to effectively say no to sex when the man won't use a condom is clearly denying men their basic right to sex on demand.
Lets see, an ad hominem, a non-sequitur and now a strawman, yep, you're going through the list all right.
For the benefit of the hard of thinking I will point out that nobody suggested teaching women to say no to sex or to douche was wrong let alone "denying men their basic rights" and nobody suggested that any man had any right to "sex on demand".
The fact that you are implying I think these things is insulting and offensive. I don't expect any apology from you, but I note how desperately you avoid the point
The way you are using these strawman 'arguments' is exactly the way you used the implication that anti-sexists all think that "women are only good for babies"
In other words, you are just proving my point for me, thanks!
Have you ever met a filipina? As rule, the culture of marianisma teaches them to have no ego, especially out in the provinces.
Yes I have met Filipino women, and no, I don't make universal generalizations about people based on their nationality any more than I do on their sex. Chauvinism and bigotry unfortunately are universal
Lets see, thats an ad hominem, a non-sequitur, a strawman and now an appeal to personal experience.
No wonder the men were "not happy". What does this tell you about the attitude to men she was teaching?
That they were used to getting their way without question and that nobody likes the loss of power that comes from having their authority questioned, especially when that authority is regularly abused.
Lets see, thats an ad hominem, a non-sequitur, a strawman, an appeal to personal experience and now a circular argument. Bingo! Do I win anything?
Interesting how when men are angry about something some people always assume this can't possibly be a valid reaction, with no evidence to back that up (even when challenged). Yet when women are angry those same people usually claim that proves they are exploited.
Since you didn't seem to have an answer the first time I will ask you again: "How would you like it if you were say, black,and some hate group sent a white to teach the white people in your village
Do you have any evidence that there are any significant number of people that think that "women are only good for babies" in the way many people in regressive countries (like the US) clearly think that men are only good for work?
Or is this one of the "blame the victim" excuses used to deny men basic rights?
Why don't you think about the fact that your ideology tells you that men are not only not exploited but actually privileged yet you know of a case where a girl was sent to teach third world women and no men were sent to teach third world men?
And judging by public information on similar 'aid' schemes, she was almost certainly sent to teach them an ideology of hate and fear, to pander to their existing prejudices and chauvinism and generally massage their already bloated female egos.
No wonder the men were "not happy". What does this tell you about the attitude to men she was teaching?
How would you feel like it if you were say, black,and some hate group sent a white to teach the white people in your village that blacks were 'biologically less valuable' or 'naturally violent' (both tenets of the feminist ideology regarding men). Do you think you too might be "not happy"?
Slashdot Mirror
I am sorry, I will try to use something closer to your intellectual level next time. Please tell me how many syllables is your limit.
You were baiting me? Do you normally screech "You've got a real stick up yer rear, dontchya?" at someone you're 'baiting'? Wow! Then I'd hate to see what you'd say if someone for instance ... I dunno ... questioned some deeply held prejudice, say.
Well, quite. For suitable small values of 'your type'.
I will leave it to others to judge which is more 'spitting and spinning', my comments, like:
or yours, like:
Actually I owe you an apology, I claimed you didn't answer my original question, which was:
But you actually replied:
Which, of course, is using your assumption that men are overprivileged as an excuse for denying them basic rights (equal access to education is not a 'privilege'), exactly as I suggested. So you did answer the question after all! Thanks again!
Since you have ignored all of the points I have made, I will add a mini-summary of this discussion. If there is anything you disagree with, please correct, preferably without name-calling.
- - - - - -
Jherek Carnelian posted a comment gloating about men being discriminated against in the Phillipines, and implying they were 'asking for it' by being 'regressive'.
I replied asking 3 questions (below)
Jherek Carnelian responded but failed to answer a single question. He did make a large number of insulting comments, reflecting an offensive stereotype of men as the ones refusing to use condoms (actually it is usually women) and "used to getting their way without question".
He also claimed that I believed that "sex on demand" is a "basic right".
But unfortunately he failed to give any evidence for any of this.
I responded by repeating two of the questions and asking for an apology for the insults.
Jherek Carnelian responded with even more name-calling.
This leaves the following questions unanswered:
He has now had 3 opportunities to give this evidence and has failed to each time, so the answer is obviously 'no'.
...
Carnelian has indirectly admitted this by using it as exactly that excuse, but has failed to answer it directly despite being challenged twice on it. 'silence infers assent' so
An ad hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem attack, how ... big of you. ,and some hate group sent a white to teach the white people in your village that blacks were 'biologically less valuable' or 'naturally violent' (both tenets of the feminist ideology regarding men)." ?
You do realise, of course, that as soon as you resort to personal insults you are admitting you have no better reply?
I take it from your lack of response you can't answer the point I made, which was: "How would you feel like it if you were say, black
This makes no sense. Thats one non-sequitur and one ad hominem, you must be going through the list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy.
So I take it then you don't have any evidence that there are any significant number of people that think that "women are only good for babies" in the way many people in regressive countries (like the US) clearly think that men are only good for work.
By the way, making an accusation against a person (in this case all the phillipines, if not the third world) without any evidence to back that up is normally considered 'regressive' itself.
Lets see, an ad hominem, a non-sequitur and now a strawman, yep, you're going through the list all right.
For the benefit of the hard of thinking I will point out that nobody suggested teaching women to say no to sex or to douche was wrong let alone "denying men their basic rights" and nobody suggested that any man had any right to "sex on demand".
The fact that you are implying I think these things is insulting and offensive. I don't expect any apology from you, but I note how desperately you avoid the point
The way you are using these strawman 'arguments' is exactly the way you used the implication that anti-sexists all think that "women are only good for babies"
In other words, you are just proving my point for me, thanks!
Yes I have met Filipino women, and no, I don't make universal generalizations about people based on their nationality any more than I do on their sex. Chauvinism and bigotry unfortunately are universal
Lets see, thats an ad hominem, a non-sequitur, a strawman and now an appeal to personal experience.
Lets see, thats an ad hominem, a non-sequitur, a strawman, an appeal to personal experience and now a circular argument. Bingo! Do I win anything? ,and some hate group sent a white to teach the white people in your village
Interesting how when men are angry about something some people always assume this can't possibly be a valid reaction, with no evidence to back that up (even when challenged). Yet when women are angry those same people usually claim that proves they are exploited.
Since you didn't seem to have an answer the first time I will ask you again: "How would you like it if you were say, black
Do you have any evidence that there are any significant number of people that think that "women are only good for babies" in the way many people in regressive countries (like the US) clearly think that men are only good for work?
,and some hate group sent a white to teach the white people in your village that blacks were 'biologically less valuable' or 'naturally violent' (both tenets of the feminist ideology regarding men). Do you think you too might be "not happy"?
Or is this one of the "blame the victim" excuses used to deny men basic rights?
Why don't you think about the fact that your ideology tells you that men are not only not exploited but actually privileged yet you know of a case where a girl was sent to teach third world women and no men were sent to teach third world men?
And judging by public information on similar 'aid' schemes, she was almost certainly sent to teach them an ideology of hate and fear, to pander to their existing prejudices and chauvinism and generally massage their already bloated female egos.
No wonder the men were "not happy". What does this tell you about the attitude to men she was teaching?
How would you feel like it if you were say, black