So proud!
-
This is what we're doing now?
wrote last edited by [email protected]That's really up to you.
You can either demonstrate how your logic doesn't result in you calling yourself a bigot, or concede that you are one.
You keep saying it's an ad hominem, but I'm not saying your argument is invalid because you're a bigot.
I'm saying either your logic isn't sound, or if it is, then you must conclude that you are a bigot as a result of it.
You refuse to concede that your logic isn't sound, so therefore...
-
That's really up to you.
You can either demonstrate how your logic doesn't result in you calling yourself a bigot, or concede that you are one.
You keep saying it's an ad hominem, but I'm not saying your argument is invalid because you're a bigot.
I'm saying either your logic isn't sound, or if it is, then you must conclude that you are a bigot as a result of it.
You refuse to concede that your logic isn't sound, so therefore...
A. I'm not saying it isn't bigoted.
B. How can we discuss this subject without me necessarily use it.
C. Using a word as an example isn't the same as using it in it's intended context.
D. You didn't make an argument you made an insult that didn't even particularly make sense but it's intent was clear. That's ad hominem, trying to hedge your way out by claiming it's part of this brilliant scheme you think you're conducting is at best disingenuous.
E. No I lost conclude you don't understand logic, example, reasoning or basic critical thinking.
I won't concede something that isn't factual, you're celebrating a win when you're at the starting line homie.
-
A. I'm not saying it isn't bigoted.
B. How can we discuss this subject without me necessarily use it.
C. Using a word as an example isn't the same as using it in it's intended context.
D. You didn't make an argument you made an insult that didn't even particularly make sense but it's intent was clear. That's ad hominem, trying to hedge your way out by claiming it's part of this brilliant scheme you think you're conducting is at best disingenuous.
E. No I lost conclude you don't understand logic, example, reasoning or basic critical thinking.
I won't concede something that isn't factual, you're celebrating a win when you're at the starting line homie.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I'm not saying it isn't bigoted.
That's not what I said. Read more carefully.
I said your logic concludes that you are bigoted for using it.
How can we discuss this subject without me necessarily use it.
You probably can't, which really puts you in a corner, logically.
Using a word as an example isn't the same as using it in it's intended context.
You previously stated that it is sexist in any context. So that's irrelevant.
You didn't make an argument you made an insult that didn't even particularly make sense but it's intent was clear.
My argument is perfectly clear: it's that your logic is flawed.
That's ad hominem
Again, no it's not. An ad hominem is when you use a character attack to discredit an argument. That's not what I'm doing.
No I lost
Lol
-
I'm not saying it isn't bigoted.
That's not what I said. Read more carefully.
I said your logic concludes that you are bigoted for using it.
How can we discuss this subject without me necessarily use it.
You probably can't, which really puts you in a corner, logically.
Using a word as an example isn't the same as using it in it's intended context.
You previously stated that it is sexist in any context. So that's irrelevant.
You didn't make an argument you made an insult that didn't even particularly make sense but it's intent was clear.
My argument is perfectly clear: it's that your logic is flawed.
That's ad hominem
Again, no it's not. An ad hominem is when you use a character attack to discredit an argument. That's not what I'm doing.
No I lost
Lol
That's exactly what you're arguing.
No it concedes that I'm using a bigoted word in a discussion about said bigoted word. It's really not hard to figure out unless you're trying to be blind.
Not at all, I know it's bigoted, you just admitted it was bigoted and thus you agree with me. Duh.
It is, you can't remove the racist insult from the hard r and you can't erase the sexism from mansplaining they are inherent.
No your argument is janky at best and we know that because you devolved to insults rather than discussion.
It is though it is amusing you just described what just did as your example of ad hominem.
An error? Who makes those?! Grow up
-
That's exactly what you're arguing.
No it concedes that I'm using a bigoted word in a discussion about said bigoted word. It's really not hard to figure out unless you're trying to be blind.
Not at all, I know it's bigoted, you just admitted it was bigoted and thus you agree with me. Duh.
It is, you can't remove the racist insult from the hard r and you can't erase the sexism from mansplaining they are inherent.
No your argument is janky at best and we know that because you devolved to insults rather than discussion.
It is though it is amusing you just described what just did as your example of ad hominem.
An error? Who makes those?! Grow up
"My argument is perfectly clear: it’s that your logic is flawed."
That’s exactly what you’re arguing.
Yeah no shit, that's why I said it...
No it concedes that I’m using a bigoted word
Correct, which, by your logic, makes you a sexist:
When it’s a sexist term you’re going to be assigned to be sexist just like I’m not stopping to ask the person dropping hard r’s if they think they’re racist
-
"My argument is perfectly clear: it’s that your logic is flawed."
That’s exactly what you’re arguing.
Yeah no shit, that's why I said it...
No it concedes that I’m using a bigoted word
Correct, which, by your logic, makes you a sexist:
When it’s a sexist term you’re going to be assigned to be sexist just like I’m not stopping to ask the person dropping hard r’s if they think they’re racist
That's not what I said. Read more carefully.
That's what I was referring to, clearly. Though I love how your argument style just keeps getting more and more disingenuous and rude.
No it means I exampled a bigoted word in a discussion about that word, there's a huge difference between an academic discussion and using it in my day to day life.
If that's the way you need to see it to accept that it is on fact sexist then yes, sure. If rather you think I'm a bigot then you actually be a bigot and use bigoted terms.
Yeah except that's me and we know I don't mean it given the plethora of context but please try to climb that pile you insist on greasing.
-
That's not what I said. Read more carefully.
That's what I was referring to, clearly. Though I love how your argument style just keeps getting more and more disingenuous and rude.
No it means I exampled a bigoted word in a discussion about that word, there's a huge difference between an academic discussion and using it in my day to day life.
If that's the way you need to see it to accept that it is on fact sexist then yes, sure. If rather you think I'm a bigot then you actually be a bigot and use bigoted terms.
Yeah except that's me and we know I don't mean it given the plethora of context but please try to climb that pile you insist on greasing.
That's what I was referring to, clearly.
So your response to "That's not what I said" is "That's exactly what you're arguing?"
Even though I explained it to you right after that line?
I said your logic concludes that you are bigoted for using it.
Weird.
No it concedes that I'm using a bigoted word in a discussion about said bigoted word.
Correct. And:
When it’s a sexist term you’re going to be assigned to be sexist
So, according to you:
- The word is bigoted/sexist no matter the context
- Using a bigoted/sexist term means you are going to be assigned to be sexist
- You used a bigoted/sexist term
Pretty simple stuff, guy. No one made you say these things. You can't be mad at me because you painted yourself into a corner.
Yeah except that's me and we know I don't mean it given the plethora of context
Contradicts with:
When it’s a sexist term you’re going to be assigned to be sexist
Which is it?
-
That's what I was referring to, clearly.
So your response to "That's not what I said" is "That's exactly what you're arguing?"
Even though I explained it to you right after that line?
I said your logic concludes that you are bigoted for using it.
Weird.
No it concedes that I'm using a bigoted word in a discussion about said bigoted word.
Correct. And:
When it’s a sexist term you’re going to be assigned to be sexist
So, according to you:
- The word is bigoted/sexist no matter the context
- Using a bigoted/sexist term means you are going to be assigned to be sexist
- You used a bigoted/sexist term
Pretty simple stuff, guy. No one made you say these things. You can't be mad at me because you painted yourself into a corner.
Yeah except that's me and we know I don't mean it given the plethora of context
Contradicts with:
When it’s a sexist term you’re going to be assigned to be sexist
Which is it?
Jesus Christ, you're somehow losing the ability to follow a conversation.
Why are you quoting yourself?
It is sexist no matter the context, I'm not using it against anyone so I'm not a bigot I'm just exampling a bigoted word. You're being obtuse. Is there a way to remove the intended insult from the hard r? No. Can you remove the intended insult from mansplaining? No. So both of those are always bigoted at times you might argue there's some moral reason to do it but that's all ex post facto.
It's sexist. If you need to see me as a bigot to get that across the so be it but you know as well as I do your argument is void of logic.
-
Jesus Christ, you're somehow losing the ability to follow a conversation.
Why are you quoting yourself?
It is sexist no matter the context, I'm not using it against anyone so I'm not a bigot I'm just exampling a bigoted word. You're being obtuse. Is there a way to remove the intended insult from the hard r? No. Can you remove the intended insult from mansplaining? No. So both of those are always bigoted at times you might argue there's some moral reason to do it but that's all ex post facto.
It's sexist. If you need to see me as a bigot to get that across the so be it but you know as well as I do your argument is void of logic.
So it seems like what you're trying to say is that it's possible for you to use that word without being a sexist, depending on the context?
Yes or no?
-
So it seems like what you're trying to say is that it's possible for you to use that word without being a sexist, depending on the context?
Yes or no?
Use it in a sentence in the correct context, I'll leave it to you to prove you can remove the insult from it.
No, its always sexist. Point to where I said the person using it is always a sexist. What I've said is if you're saying someone is mansplaining you're in fact a sexist and I've said you cannot remove the intended insult.
-
Use it in a sentence in the correct context, I'll leave it to you to prove you can remove the insult from it.
No, its always sexist. Point to where I said the person using it is always a sexist. What I've said is if you're saying someone is mansplaining you're in fact a sexist and I've said you cannot remove the intended insult.
Let's try this again.
Yes or no:
Is it possible for you to use the word "mansplain" without being a sexist, depending on the context?
-
Let's try this again.
Yes or no:
Is it possible for you to use the word "mansplain" without being a sexist, depending on the context?
Yes. We've gone over this. You can use it without being a sexist.
You cannot use it in the proper context without being a sexist ie. "Greg is mansplaining baseball." Because that's clearly a sexist insult.
Your think you're making a point but you're just rehashing shut you've apparently forgotten.
-
Yes. We've gone over this. You can use it without being a sexist.
You cannot use it in the proper context without being a sexist ie. "Greg is mansplaining baseball." Because that's clearly a sexist insult.
Your think you're making a point but you're just rehashing shut you've apparently forgotten.
Great!
So can you give me a single example of a scenario where a woman could:
- assess an interaction she had with a man,
- deem his behaviour to be "misogynistic",
- not be a sexist herself?
-
Great!
So can you give me a single example of a scenario where a woman could:
- assess an interaction she had with a man,
- deem his behaviour to be "misogynistic",
- not be a sexist herself?
wrote last edited by [email protected]We've done this, you're rehashing your stupid argument again.
-
We've done this, you're rehashing your stupid argument again.
Nowhere in that thread did you answer that question. Feel free to quote your answer and prove me wrong.
Let's try again:
Can you give me a single example of a scenario where a woman could:
- assess an interaction she had with a man,
- deem his behaviour to be "misogynistic",
- not be a sexist herself?
-
Nowhere in that thread did you answer that question. Feel free to quote your answer and prove me wrong.
Let's try again:
Can you give me a single example of a scenario where a woman could:
- assess an interaction she had with a man,
- deem his behaviour to be "misogynistic",
- not be a sexist herself?
Then you aren't reading.
-
You doesn't respond to a single one, you insulted me that's called abandoninga position to attack me instead ie: ad hominem.
Nope not at all. I said it's a bigoted word and if you use it as it's intended you're a bigot. This isn't difficult.
Show me the inconsistency.
All the parts you're intentionally ignoring to make your dipshit gotcha point.
Max comment depth reached.
I'm just going to keep asking this question until you either quote your alleged answer, or give a new one:
Can you give me a single example of a scenario where a woman could:
- assess an interaction she had with a man,
- deem his behaviour to be "misogynistic",
- not be a sexist herself?
-
Max comment depth reached.
I'm just going to keep asking this question until you either quote your alleged answer, or give a new one:
Can you give me a single example of a scenario where a woman could:
- assess an interaction she had with a man,
- deem his behaviour to be "misogynistic",
- not be a sexist herself?
Neat.
Keep asking whenever you'd like but I'm not playing this game with you. I provided two separate answers that happen to be the same, just read the comment chain again.
Literally just read the comment chain and quit asking the same question over and over. You're not going to get the answer you want with a rapist mentality either boss but it does kinda evidence how gross you're willing to be.
-
Neat.
Keep asking whenever you'd like but I'm not playing this game with you. I provided two separate answers that happen to be the same, just read the comment chain again.
Literally just read the comment chain and quit asking the same question over and over. You're not going to get the answer you want with a rapist mentality either boss but it does kinda evidence how gross you're willing to be.
wrote last edited by [email protected]It's funny, every time you've accused me of not answering a question, I've provided screenshots and direct quotes. Pretty disingenuous of you not to do the same.
I provided two separate answers that happen to be the same, just read the comment chain again
I believe that you believe that's true. But having read that thread, I see nothing resembling an answer to that question. And since you refuse to just quote it, I have to assume it's just buried in your unreadable grammar and mess of typos.
So let's try this again:
Can you give me a single example of a scenario where a woman could:
- assess an interaction she had with a man,
- deem his behaviour to be "misogynistic",
- not be a sexist herself?
-
It's funny, every time you've accused me of not answering a question, I've provided screenshots and direct quotes. Pretty disingenuous of you not to do the same.
I provided two separate answers that happen to be the same, just read the comment chain again
I believe that you believe that's true. But having read that thread, I see nothing resembling an answer to that question. And since you refuse to just quote it, I have to assume it's just buried in your unreadable grammar and mess of typos.
So let's try this again:
Can you give me a single example of a scenario where a woman could:
- assess an interaction she had with a man,
- deem his behaviour to be "misogynistic",
- not be a sexist herself?
And I've directly linked the content chain that provides your answer, so crying because I'm not doing it in a dumber way.
Yeah we get it you have a reading comprehension issue, move on.
Keep asking the same question and I'm hoping to link the same answer but no no, keep on asking until you get a yes. That's a reasonable way to act.