|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
12th December 2012, 05:23 AM | #521 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
You spend a lot of time telling people what they know and what they meant. In your recent posts, most of that has been directed to the Schrodinger's Rapist article writer, saying what she obviously meant, but here, you direct it it to me. According to you, I won't address it because I know it doesn't fit. My actual reason is simpler. It's that if I addressed everything that was wrong it would take too much time. But since you brought this one up, I'll address this point. Here's your original comment.
Quote:
In this day and age, pretty much everyone understands that most men read porn. It's not odd behavior. However, reading porn in a doctor's office is odd behavior. Being a man is not odd or scary. Being a man in a women's locker room is odd,and scary. In each case, we have two elements of similarity. First, there is odd behavior. Second, there is a disregard for the feelings of the people around. Normal people know that people in a doctor's office don't want to be next to a guy reading a porn mag. Normal people know that women don't want to take off their clothes in a public locker room while being observed by a man. The fact that the people in my examples are unconcerned about the feelings of those around them is a warning sign that they could indeed be dangerous people.
Quote:
I hesitate to put thoughts into your head or words in your mouth, but it seems like you are lumping all of those people together into a group, and saying that they all think alike, and that therefore a comment by one is really the same as a comment by another. |
12th December 2012, 05:53 AM | #522 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,515
|
This is too sweeping a statement. It depends on your lifestyle. I am confident that there are no men of my acquaintance who do so. They are not immoral and have no wish to be. But instead know their worth as a son of God, are an example of real manhood and are admired for it.
|
12th December 2012, 05:56 AM | #523 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
|
I think Im going to have to side with Meadmaker here. You might not think they look at porn, but they probably do, or probably used to (maybe they are married now and cant get away with it or arent as interested). I also object to your assertion that its immoral, but then you also said "know their worth as a son of God", you do know you're on a skeptic website right?
|
12th December 2012, 06:03 AM | #524 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,515
|
Yes I know what website this is, and that it is not a pre requisite of membership to be immoral or a non Christian.
|
12th December 2012, 06:10 AM | #525 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
|
Well aren't you confused. I brought up Schrodinger's Rapist because what you were arguing sounded a lot like Schrodinger's Rapist in the ways I have pointed out.
You didnt address my criticisms of your comparison, but instead tried to spin the SR article into something much tamer. You still wont deal with why, if the writer doesnt unconsciously see all men as rapists, it has to tell the demographic of "good men" that arent rapists, to "not rape".
Quote:
Quote:
EDIT: Oh and btw, you have said several times now that if the transwomen said she was a lesbian the women should be even MORE fearful. So she should fear the transwomen even if he/she is not attracted to women, but if the transwomen is attracted to women she should be more afraid. Again this is very telling about how you see things and the fact you keep unconsciously revealing this is beautiful. Does that mean a women should fear a lesbian women in a lockerroom as well, for the same reason? Or is it only different because its a man, not a women, because its only the man that is inherently violent? Additionally, should any man fear a gay man in their lockerroom? Why should their fear be any less strong than the former scenario? And if we shouldnt allow transwomen in a womans locker room for this reason, then surely we should not allow gay men in a heterosexual lockeroom with other heterosexual men for the same reason.
Quote:
Quote:
As I said, which you again ignore: "So if the level of fear and behavior expressed in Schrodingers Rapist directed to a demographic of men that only accounts for a 1/4 of all rapes is reasonable, then what do you think is the appropriate level of fear that should be directed to the demographic of men that accounts for 3/4 of the men most likely to rape you, like your husband/friend/boyfriend/immediate family? "
Quote:
|
12th December 2012, 06:11 AM | #526 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
|
|
12th December 2012, 07:26 AM | #527 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,449
|
That comment is an outlier, the gist of the argument is about stranger rape including the ridiculous idea that a woman might be fearful about being raped on a crowed bus because her ability to flee the situation is limited. I don't know what the author was thinking that all the other passengers on that crowded bus would do but had she added cheer on the rape, I wouldn't have been surprised.
|
12th December 2012, 07:45 AM | #528 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,449
|
"That guy" doesn't exist.
Thee's a number of things "wrong" with that article, I won't bore you with them save the most interesting, the most mind numbingly stupid , the best example of epic retardation contained within.
Quote:
You learned heterosexuality ? Wow I figured it out all by myself, it was easy. I'm tempted to email the PhD in Sociology that hosts the article (XYonline, not to be confused with American gay porn mag ) and ask how he thinks our species made it through evolution having to be taught to reproduce as well as forwarding it to those "gay converters" in Borat so they'd have something from the hard left to justify their positions that sexual preference is, indeed, learned behaviour" I've never heard that "heterosexuality is learned" outside of the most radical of radical feminist blog postings and comments so I highly doubt that the author exists as a "real" man and is instead, a pen name of some radical lesbian with an axe to grind. |
12th December 2012, 07:53 AM | #529 | |||
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
|
Are you suggesting this man that wrote that article isn't really a man, but a women writing a fake story to push the arguments about rape contained within it? Even if that were true, which I dont think it is, it would only mean that feminists still want to push those same ideas.
I know its a terrible article though I thought I made that clear?
Quote:
I strongly recommend this short 40 min documentary made for Norwegian TV if you want to know more:
http://youtu.be/p5LRdW8xw70 |
|||
12th December 2012, 07:59 AM | #530 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,449
|
|
12th December 2012, 08:01 AM | #531 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
|
Frankly I think you dont give male feminists enough credit for being stupid. I've seen more than enough of them saying the same nonsense. Still as I say it wouldn't really matter even if he was fake and written only as a piece of feminist propaganda as its the sentiment thats the point. Bare in mind that its on a website called "The European Men Profeminist Network" so clearly other men agree with it as well or it wouldnt be there unless you also think the entire thing is also fake. As I say though do watch that documentary, its really quite interesting.
Anyway this is all getting a bit off topic. |
12th December 2012, 09:19 AM | #532 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,449
|
Oh yea, I'll give male feminists all the credit they deserve for being stupid, in fact some of the most hardcore feminists I've run into have been male.
The strange thing about this piece is the author is actually sort of trying to own his actions, as much as you can own those actions by writing under a pseudonym. As we know, owning your actions is something that's anathema to the hard left. There's always got to be some sort of excuse, like social pressure compelled me to have sex, that sentiment is clearly lacking in that article. That's the whole idea of being on the hard left, avoiding any sort of personal responsibility. It's always, "not my fault, somebody/something else made me do it." Look at Atheism+ and what they did with that embarrassing SF torture thread. They just made it go away. Now, really go own your actions and go confess to the police about those rapes. The article traces back to something called XYonline, the EMPN merely reprinted it. it was written in 1995 meaning the "rapes" happened in 1987. I'll watch the documentary later but I did give it a quick look. |
12th December 2012, 09:29 AM | #533 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
|
Nail on head. Feminism is all about seeing women as perpetual victims that are incapable of controlling their lives and their own thoughts, and regarding sex that they should take no responsibility for anything that happens to them at all and even that their actions are irrelevant. This leads to their bizarre ideas about rape as exemplified in that article we're talking about where foreplay ends up being attempted rape, or rape if it leads to sex. If a women is convinced to have sex by a man because he appeared disappointed that she initially didnt want to, or used foreplay to get her in the mood and change her mind, then many of these feminists say this is rape because clearly the women isnt making the decision on her own. She cant she walk away from the situation, the man has complete control over her thoughts and thats why she should take no responsibility for actually having sex with the man that did that. They also will readily say that what they define as rape are all "just as serious" as a violent stranger rape and will vilify anyone who says otherwise such as what happened with Kenneth Clarke the Justice Secretary in the UK. Its also why they refuse to accept that men are sexually assaulted and that women abuse men just as much as men do and for more or less the same reasons. Its why we only see one set of statistics, the female statistic, to imply that it just doesnt happen to men or thats its so rare its not worth mentioning. If they accepted reality we wouldn't see something like VAWA, which is just officialized justification of their paranoid fear of victimisation. They cant accept men are victims too because that would make women look less like victims and more like abusers and even though thats the reality they arent interested in that as that doesnt serve their needs or their feminist theory.
To turn this back to the OP, that is why someone like Meadmaker talks the way he does. He believes men are abusers and women are victims of that abuse, thats why a women should fear a man in a womans lockerroom, not because for any reasonable reason, but because he says that testicles are inherently violent. |
12th December 2012, 05:10 PM | #534 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
Let the interested reader judge whether or not it was implied that it was a women's locker room. Here's the post:
Quote:
Quote:
There's nothing unconscious in what I'm saying. I'm saying it on purpose.
Quote:
Quote:
As for the 3/4 and 1/4 above, it's misleading. Among that 3/4 figure are people that are "known", but not necessarily known well. If a man rapes a woman on the second date, he's known to her. He's in the 3/4 group, but he hasn't been there long. The caution that women ought to observe is when they go with someone not very well known into a position where a sexual assault could take place.
Quote:
|
12th December 2012, 05:18 PM | #535 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
I don't think it's about stranger rape. It's about men approoaching women, frequiently with the intention of perhaps starting a romantic and ultimately sexual relationship. (Timelines on exactly how long that takes may vary.)
She's saying that if you act like a rapist, that girl won't date you. She's not saying that the women need to be afraid of being raped at that time. Specifically with the bus incident it had nothing to do with fear of being raped on the bus. It was all about how the man's behavior on the bus might make it more or less likely that a woman would allow herself to be alone with that man. |
12th December 2012, 05:31 PM | #536 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
|
If people want to talk about the Schrodinger's Rapist article, why don't they take it to a new thread about the article?
This is a full page of off-topic. |
12th December 2012, 05:33 PM | #537 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,449
|
|
12th December 2012, 05:48 PM | #538 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
|
What you just dont realise is that its giving away how you really feel.
Thats why you can say things like men are "inherently violent" and then pretend you didnt, while at the same time continuing to say it. A woman should fear men because he has testosterone running though his body generated by his testicles, that is what you argued when I first engaged you. Now you are desperately trying to pretend that actually you do think a women has a valid reason to fear a man rather than becuase, you know, he just exists as a male and that makes him inherently violent. This is why you said it makes it worse if the trans-woman is attracted to women and identifies as a lesbian. As I said before which you ignored, if you are not saying women should fear men because they are men, then this means that women should fear other female lesbians for the same reason. It also means that men should be fearful of other gay men in their lockerrooms. And if we shouldn't allow transwomen in a womens lockerroom because of this, then we shouldnt allow gay men or lesbian women to be in a men and womens lockeroom for the same reason. But of course we know you'd never accept all this because you know its crazy, but that is the logical consequence of your argument and shows that you really do view it purely as women fearing the man because he is a man.
Quote:
Then we have the unconscious admission that she sees all men as rapists, because she tells us that even the good men who havent raped yet, we need to tell those men not to rape. This means that either she didnt really believe any man is genuinely good if they were going to rape a women before she told them not to, or she believes good people can still rape. Either option implies that all men are rapists, so its a zero sum game for her
Quote:
What you keep ignoring is that the article is not about date rape its literally about approaching a women you dont know - strangers.
Quote:
|
12th December 2012, 07:45 PM | #539 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
I see what you mean.
I didn't notice her reference to fleeing because I took it somewhat differently. I took it to mean that in a crowded place she wouldn't want to stick around, but might be prevented from getting away. It's not about danger as much as anxiety. And that's my point about the locker room. Is it remotely likely that Colleen would rape anyone? It doesn't seem so. Too public, if for no other reason. Nevertheless, women feel vulnerable when taking off their clothes. They feel a lot more vulnerable when taking off their clothes in front or men. They feel even more vulnerable if the man is naked. I have attributed that feeling and its accompanying anxiety to an underlying and perfectly reasonable fear of sexual assault. It's not that someone rationally believes that there is an imminent assault. I just think that there is a primitive fear with that as its source. Can I prove that's the source? No. Does it really matter? No. Normal women feel discomfort when taking their clothes off around strange men. This is true regardless of the underlying cause. It happens. It's normal. Reasonable people would do everything in their power to minimize that discomfort. Colleen had a chance to do that. He/she chose not to do that. |
12th December 2012, 08:11 PM | #540 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
You seem to know a great deal about what I am saying. You seem to know more about what I am saying than I do, because I don't think I'm saying what you seem to think I'm saying.
Quote:
Quote:
Women have natural anxiety around men, and should take precautions around men (which is different from saying they "should fear men"), because, on average, men are bigger and stronger and more aggressive than women, and generally want to have sex with women. Some of those men have provent themselves to be indifferent to women's lack of desire. Should women fear lesbians? I'll defer the answer to women. Hwoever, the way I see it, there are several differences between lesbians and men, The bigger, stronger, and more aggressive part doesn't apply. Also, lesbians in women's locker rooms are not behaving oddly. If the lesbians start acting sexually in the locker room, that changes things. Now, those lesbians are behaving in a strange manner, not appropriate for a locker room. The case is similar for a man. As long as he isn't behaving oddly, then there is no need to fear. However, the smart people will have already realized something. It's impossible for a man to use a women's locker room without behaving oddly. His mere presence is odd, and inconsiderate, and aggressive, and all of those things that make women think that they really ought to avoid being alone with him, and would make them less willing to take off their clothes in his presence. |
12th December 2012, 09:26 PM | #541 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,449
|
OK, but even the subtitle, the bit about getting maced, sets the tone for the piece being more about immediate danger.
Re the OP No I don't think Colleen was interested in committing rape, based on the stuff we've all read there's no suggestion of immediate danger. i only tossed SR in there as a discussion issue because I thought it odd that Colleen, a women's studies s student would be expected to know the effects an unexpected penis in a penis free zone would/could have. I'm not a woman so I can't offer up how I'd react to such a situation but for the sake of discussion we can assume a range of possible reactions, from acceptance to horror and a women's studies student would most likely be aware that the odds of a negative reaction far outweigh the odds of a positive one. The shock value alone would influence those odds and I'm wondering what might happen should Colleen make it known beforehand, say with a sign on the outside of the sauna, that's there's something unexpected going on inside. Either that or just wear shorts. I don't understand this whole nude in the sauna thing, then again, I don't get the whole sauna thing in general. I'm all about hot tubs |
13th December 2012, 04:07 AM | #542 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
|
hahah wow. I rest my case. You just admitted again that men should be feared for no other reason than they are men. They cant help but act in an "inconsiderate, and aggressive" way, because that comes from being inherently male. When I told you that is what you had been saying you deny it, then you come back right back with this all over again. What you wrote I couldnt have put better myself, only if I had you'd claim I had put words in your mouth. I love how you keep admitting this over and over and then when I point it out you just deny it and go right back to saying the same thing. You know I heard once that in a debate one of the best things you can do is just let the other person talk, you're like the poster child for this. |
13th December 2012, 05:03 AM | #543 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
|
13th December 2012, 05:11 AM | #544 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
Yeah. In my mind I likened the piece to a mother talking to her kid about why he should wear a bicycle helmet. The mother has a point, but in order to make the point, the tone will inevitably be so alarmist that the point will end up getting lost in many cases.
Quote:
|
13th December 2012, 05:22 AM | #545 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
|
Still denying thats what you said? Amazing!
"It's impossible for a man to use a women's locker room without behaving oddly. His mere presence is odd, and inconsiderate, and aggressive"So, a women should fear a man simply because he is a man. A man is inherently dangerous simply because he is a man. Simply being a man in the presence of a women is "odd, and inconsiderate, and aggressive". And why do you think this? Because... "Testicles produce testesterone, which promotes both muscle growth and aggression. Yes, there is something inherently violent about balls."And yet you keep trying to deny you really feel this way, even when in the very same post you deny it you invariably say the same thing all over again in a different way. Stunning. Ive never seen someone argue against themselves quite so well as you. |
13th December 2012, 05:40 AM | #546 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
|
13th December 2012, 05:49 AM | #547 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
|
Since I already put it in context with your other statements there is no way else to read it. What is it about a man specifically, as opposed to a women? You already told us that its not the same if it were a lesbian women, it only matters because its a man. And you even tell us that the man simply has to exist as a man to be "odd, and inconsiderate, and aggressive", in that he doesnt have to do anything specifically strange or give a women a reason to fear him, he is to be feared simply because he is male, to exist as a man. So, it is exactly as I said it was.
But as usual you wont explain yourself, its easier to allude to some idea that you've already done so or that its already so obvious. |
13th December 2012, 07:49 AM | #548 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,259
|
Point of reference: I am cis-male
Given the attitudes I've seen from other men about trans-women I don't blame them. I've worked with guys who bragged about beating up a gay kid in high school. I knew one guy who got worked up into a frenzy and punched the damn wall because the very idea of a trans-women being in the same dance club as him was discussed. This was a theoretical discussion about a theoretical trans-woman at a theoretical dance club, and it still made him angry and violent enough to punch a wall, denting the drywall. Is it sexist to suggest that a trans-woman would potentially be in danger in a locker room with men? Probably. Given the prevalence of trans-phobia however it's a perfectly reasonable defense mechanism for her to have that fear. It still pisses me off to know this situation exists though. It pisses me off that someone has to worry about their physical safety because of their gender. Spoiler: Rapists don't have much empathy, if any. |
13th December 2012, 10:19 AM | #549 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,259
|
There's a long established trend of woo-woo proponents and religious fundamentalists wading into reality based territory not actually engage with anyone, but to lord their smug self-importance and pride over the poor, damned skeptics and atheists.
I'm not saying that's the case here, but if you start getting a bunch of religious copypasta and a refusal to engage in actual discussion, it's best to just walk away from the thread. You can't engage with someone who doesn't want to engage. Sometimes though, it's just damn fun to poke at them to see if you can get a reply that isn't regurgitated from rote memorization. Getting an actual thought out of a fundamentalist is something of a puzzle. Back on topic though, trans-phobia is something that's culturally old, yet oddly perceived as a "new" thing to many people. I suspect that's because many people simply were not aware of discrimination and violence against trans-women until it started hitting the mainstream social consciousness. I find myself wondering if some of the 1960's opposition to the Civil Rights movement was due, in part, to many whites simply having never realized there was a real racial discrimination problem. |
Last edited by halleyscomet; 13th December 2012 at 10:25 AM. Reason: Adding content to make post on-topic |
|
13th December 2012, 10:48 AM | #550 |
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 516
|
This statement sounded dodgy to me, so I googled it. According to this study, "rapists may suppress empathy primarily toward their own victim rather than suffer from a generalized empathy deficit." This is pretty much what I'd have guessed. It's very rare for a human being not to feel any empathy whatsoever - it's just that empathy is easily turned off when it allows people to get what they want.
Rape is not uncommon. Attitudes related to rape - such as treating a partner as property - aren't just somewhat common: they are mainstream. So rapists aren't monsters lacking empathy. They do what most people do in most areas of their lives; they show no regard for other people's desires and aspirations and dreams, as long as they get what they want out of them. In short, people in general are *********, definitely not fundamentally different from rapists. I'm not saying this to minimize rape - I mean that we live in a ********** up world where rape is endemic and most other attitudes also reflect that fact. |
13th December 2012, 10:49 AM | #551 |
Sole Survivor of L-Town
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Lexington, KY, USA, Earth
Posts: 15,149
|
|
__________________
Religion and sex are powerplays. Manipulate the people for the money they pay. Selling skin, selling God The numbers look the same on their credit cards. |
|
13th December 2012, 10:51 AM | #552 |
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
|
No, what Meadmaker said was that the mere presence of a man in a woman's locker room is odd, inconsiderate, and aggressive. I don't agree, mind you, but don't divorce the statement from its context.
Do I correctly assume that Meadmaker would agree that the presence of a woman in a man's locker room is similarly odd, inconsiderate, and aggressive? If so, then it's the invasion of segregated space rather than the maleness that is the offending factor. |
13th December 2012, 11:28 AM | #553 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
|
Then why does he think its "inconsiderate, and aggressive" for a transwomen to be in there?
Why does he not think its "odd, inconsiderate, and aggressive" for a lesbian woman to be in a womans locker room? Why does he/or does he(?) think that its not(?) "odd, inconsiderate, and aggressive" for a gay man to be in a mens locker room? Why did he already tell us that he sees males as "inherently violent"? This IS the context. I accept that a man in a womans locker room does give a woman more cause for concern because there's not a lot of reasons for him to be there. However if there is a transwomen in there, then there IS a reason. So at this point the only reason why a woman should still be - reasonably - fearful is if the transwomen gives her a reason to be. But Meadmaker has told us there needs to be no reason, the mere fact that he is a man is "aggressive". So it is "impossible" for a women to not have a reasonable fear of a transwomen, according to Meadmaker. If it makes a difference whether its post-op and they have no male genitals anymore, then it is clearly just misandry and/or irrational to believe that if you have a penis you are automatically to be feared because men are "inherently violent" and women presumably are not. Meadmaker is someone saying this fear is reasonable and he has given us all these reasons why he believes that right here. |
13th December 2012, 03:55 PM | #554 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
Avalon, apparently, can read.
Of your questions, the only one worth even addressing is whether or not the transwoman (biologically male, self identifies as female) ought to be in there, and whether or not it is inconsiderate and agressive for a transwoman to be present in a women's locker room. (Although not worth addressing, I should say "addressing again", since they have been addressed.) After attempting to come up with an answer for a while, I'll refer to Stout's last comment, but I'll extend it somewhat. He was referring to the fact that, as a Women's Studies major, Colleen would have to be aware of the reaction of the girls in that locker room, and "her" disregard and lack of concern for that reaction was inconsiderate. I'll extend it by saying that most people would know that without the benefit of academic study, so the reasoning applies to everyone. It is, at the least, inconsiderate to allow your private parts to be seen in the women's locker room if those private parts are of the male variety. In the case of Colleen, I really wouldn't want "him" in that locker room, and in the case of other transwomen, I would fear that they were a lot like Colleen. |
13th December 2012, 04:06 PM | #555 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
|
This is not about Colleen, i already said i do not know how you would deal with this situation.
I am objecting to your generalised scenario and ideas about men and women that you have. YOU were the one that told me that it is merely because you have testicles that makes you inherently violent and thats why women should fear you, but you assured me that as a man it is possible to force back your naturally violent male compulsions. That is what you initially replied to me with. Recently you said that it is impossible for a man to not appear aggressive. Why? Because he is male. I asked all the critical questions in the previous post, you wont answer them because you cant without admitting any of this or just dig yourself in deeper. btw Avalon hasnt been talking to you for pages and isnt putting your statements into context with other things you said. |
13th December 2012, 04:15 PM | #556 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
|
13th December 2012, 04:24 PM | #557 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
|
He is not getting it right, address my post to him fully and address my questions and that will become apparent. He doesnt realise what you have said before, which is why he has charitably interpreted it as an egalitarian stance rather than a sexist one.
If you are not being sexist again men, then prove it. Show me you dont see men as appearing inherently aggressive in the presence of a women simply because they are men, and show you are consistent in your rationale for why a women should fear a man in the lockerroom by not only applying the same logic to lesbian women in the same lockerroom, but also to gay men in a mens lockerroom. You tell us what is it about the man specifically that means a women should fear him. EDIT: I tell you what if you agree right now with the following from Avalon I'll quit giving you a hard time (until you say something else thats stupid like being male makes you inherently violent)
Quote:
|
13th December 2012, 04:41 PM | #558 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
|
I wonder if anyone told David Reimer? Someone should get on that.
Oh, wait, he killed himself. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=184958 You do realize that the "You're wrong, but I won't explain why" gambit doesn't fool anyone unless the person already agrees with you, right? Especially when you have enough care to make lengthy responses? You have said, repeatedly, that you refuse to explain how Edx is wrong. This is a skeptic forum. If you can't prove anything, it can't be accepted. But, sure, keep dodging. |
13th December 2012, 05:16 PM | #559 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
|
Wow, I just looked that story up... Thats pretty horrifying...
|
13th December 2012, 05:17 PM | #560 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,449
|
Off topic I know but this is one of those strange coincidences, so strange in fact that it probably deserves its own segment on Shatner's crappy show.
On Atheism+. on a thread about SR, on a post that went up today. We have this.
Quote:
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|