Strawman arguments?

[Seth]

And now you're trying to use reverse psychology. Well done.

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

[Animavore]

And now you're trying to use reverse psychology. Well done.

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

Now you're just talking random shit.

[Animavore]

Are you claiming I'm not allowed to have a rant now and again, not familiar with my posting style are you.

I dunno. Do you still beat your wife?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Feminism is a man hating ideology and if you subscribe to that ideology you are a man hater by default.

Bullshit! Fucking strawman2!

Read my post above.

[DaveDodo007]

Again this thread is not about feminism, I wanted your opinions on whether my arguments were strawman arguments or not. I choose this place because even members who disagree with you will usually argue in good faith. Something that is an anathema over at ratskep. I was even mocked for coming here and asking the question, when I thought if you are unsure of something that is exactly what you should do. It is all academic now as I'm never going back there, they should be sued under the trade description act for having the audacity to call the site Rationskepticism.

Your second argument is a clear strawman. You assert ONE textbook definition of feminism. Feminism is a VERY broad church and it is probably true that the majority of feminists would not fit that template. Personally, I would describe myself as a feminist (sensu lato) in that I am an advocate of equality for women in all aspects of life - be it pay, work opportunities, sexual freedom, academic opportunities, etc. I am certainly not a misandrist (although I do hate myself - but then I'm well aware that I am a complete cunt, so that's not the same thing) but I am a closet lesbian.

You simply cannot define what feminism is when arguing with someone that self-identifies as a feminist or is putting a feminist POV - or define anything else for that matter! Beginning a discussion by telling someone else what they think and believe is just about as strawmaniacal as you can get! It's much the same as accusing all christians of being YECs - deeply patronising and rightly dismissed out of hand by anyone with whom you are debating.

Even if you can back up your definition with references and citations, you are still committing an "Argument from Authority" fallacy - which is often no better than a strawman, or, at best, only a marginal improvement.

In an ideal world, all participants would agree on a definition up front - however broad that definition may be - but with something as nebulous and subjective as feminism, expecting this is unrealistic. You just have to accept that pretty much everyone else in the debate will have their own take on it and roll with the punches.

Though you are just using an "Appeal To Purity" argument/fallacy. What you are saying is that I can never attack feminism because there is an arbitrary (pure) idea of feminism somewhere. No matter how complling the evidence is against feminism it can't be criticized ever. I don't think I can get on board with an idea being ring fenced. I also don't like the way it is claimed that to be against feminism is to be against women's rights. If I used the same argument against women's rights that I am using against feminism I will fall flat on my face. Women's (all) rights movements are issue specific and goal oriented. I have always believed in equal rights for everyone.

[surreptitious57]

Dave : you should have stayed no matter how unpopular you would have become. I know that it can be hard and the two current members that are very unpopular have been taking years of abuse but they are still there. Now that you have decided to leave there are fewer alternative voices. It is already known that there was concerted effort to get rid of two undesirables and now you have gone also. I am an insider and so it does not really affect me though it is not about me any way. There should be a rule that undesirables are more protected so that the majority can not get rid of them just for being unpopular. To even things out a little all the undesirables should be made life members. This would mean they could never force any one to leave the forum less they actually wanted to. Now there would be a very long thread indeed about that with everyone complaining that it was favouritism. However when some are more equal than others there is nothing wrong in reversing that imbalance. Now I know that none of this has actually got anything to do with the subject matter of the thread but now that you have decided to leave Rat Skep it is as you say academic Still at least there will always be one undesirable over there no matter how unpopular he becomes. He can be irritating as hell but I would much rather have him in the forum than outside it. I often wonder why he stays given the level of abuse he has to endure so if he reading this he might enlighten me because I am genuinely curious

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Again this thread is not about feminism, I wanted your opinions on whether my arguments were strawman arguments or not. I choose this place because even members who disagree with you will usually argue in good faith. Something that is an anathema over at ratskep. I was even mocked for coming here and asking the question, when I thought if you are unsure of something that is exactly what you should do. It is all academic now as I'm never going back there, they should be sued under the trade description act for having the audacity to call the site Rationskepticism.

Your second argument is a clear strawman. You assert ONE textbook definition of feminism. Feminism is a VERY broad church and it is probably true that the majority of feminists would not fit that template. Personally, I would describe myself as a feminist (sensu lato) in that I am an advocate of equality for women in all aspects of life - be it pay, work opportunities, sexual freedom, academic opportunities, etc. I am certainly not a misandrist (although I do hate myself - but then I'm well aware that I am a complete cunt, so that's not the same thing) but I am a closet lesbian.

You simply cannot define what feminism is when arguing with someone that self-identifies as a feminist or is putting a feminist POV - or define anything else for that matter! Beginning a discussion by telling someone else what they think and believe is just about as strawmaniacal as you can get! It's much the same as accusing all christians of being YECs - deeply patronising and rightly dismissed out of hand by anyone with whom you are debating.

Even if you can back up your definition with references and citations, you are still committing an "Argument from Authority" fallacy - which is often no better than a strawman, or, at best, only a marginal improvement.

In an ideal world, all participants would agree on a definition up front - however broad that definition may be - but with something as nebulous and subjective as feminism, expecting this is unrealistic. You just have to accept that pretty much everyone else in the debate will have their own take on it and roll with the punches.

Though you are just using an "Appeal To Purity" argument/fallacy. What you are saying is that I can never attack feminism because there is an arbitrary (pure) idea of feminism somewhere. No matter how complling the evidence is against feminism it can't be criticized ever. I don't think I can get on board with an idea being ring fenced. I also don't like the way it is claimed that to be against feminism is to be against women's rights. If I used the same argument against women's rights that I am using against feminism I will fall flat on my face. Women's (all) rights movements are issue specific and goal oriented. I have always believed in equal rights for everyone.

ANOTHER FUCKING STRAWMAN!!111!!

Saying, "What you're saying..." when it clearly is NOT what I am saying is the very epitome of strawmanship!

Where have I said that you can never attack feminism? Or any of the other bullshit you just shovelled into my mouth? Jesus Fucking H Christ in a gaybar! I see why they think you're such a poor opponent now. You seriously have no idea what you're talking about, do you? You didn't read my measured response to your OP - you simply ASSUMED that it meant something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT and went for the jugular - ending up with a mouthful of straw!

Fuck off and wank yourself silly over putting me in my place here. Bask in the warm glow of smug self-satisfaction that only the truly ignorant of their own shortcomings can know.

[hackenslash]

That is actually worse because it suggests a degree of collusion on the part of those with influence to get their own way

Total fucking arse-water. What it actually suggests is that the moderating staff had begun to recognise that he was a troll.

Dude, you really have to learn to spend some time thinking before you evacuate your bowels in this manner because there's only one victim when that happens. That the world's foremost moron is agreeing with you should give you some pause.

Like he does all the time, you're extrapolating an entire set of circumstances directly from your rectum based on one sentence. His excuse is that he's a fucking moron who would do the world a favour by evacuating it. I expect more of you than I do of stupid cunts like Seth.

A free thinking space should tolerate the views of all not just those of the majority otherwise groupthink becomes the norm

Nothing to do with his views, and everything to do with the fact that he's a toxic twat who threw his weight around like he actually had any. He didn't have any views, he had only the tired apologetic cuntery of other contemptible oxygen-thieves.

It really is time you learned to read English, because the fictions you bring to situations are horrendously misleading.

Rat Skep is fast getting a reputation for being intolerant of those that do not represent the general mind set and this has to stop

What a stupid fucking thing to say. It's reputation is what it is, and reputations rarely reflect reality. Reputations are built of the head-up-arse wittering of butthurt morons like |Seth here. Opinions, that's what reputations are, and you know exactly what orifice you can ram those into with extreme prejudice.

If you think reputations are of any value, you're a moron.

You're fast getting a reputation for rendering judgement from a position of faux superiority and stupid snap judgements. That's reputations for you.

No one should be rejected just because they think differently to everyone else since that is not how a rational forum should function

Agreed. That's not what happened with Mick though. He was a bullying troll who sapped the life of the forum, much like this stupid cunt here.

[DaveDodo007]

Again this thread is not about feminism, I wanted your opinions on whether my arguments were strawman arguments or not. I choose this place because even members who disagree with you will usually argue in good faith. Something that is an anathema over at ratskep. I was even mocked for coming here and asking the question, when I thought if you are unsure of something that is exactly what you should do. It is all academic now as I'm never going back there, they should be sued under the trade description act for having the audacity to call the site Rationskepticism.

Your second argument is a clear strawman. You assert ONE textbook definition of feminism. Feminism is a VERY broad church and it is probably true that the majority of feminists would not fit that template. Personally, I would describe myself as a feminist (sensu lato) in that I am an advocate of equality for women in all aspects of life - be it pay, work opportunities, sexual freedom, academic opportunities, etc. I am certainly not a misandrist (although I do hate myself - but then I'm well aware that I am a complete cunt, so that's not the same thing) but I am a closet lesbian.

You simply cannot define what feminism is when arguing with someone that self-identifies as a feminist or is putting a feminist POV - or define anything else for that matter! Beginning a discussion by telling someone else what they think and believe is just about as strawmaniacal as you can get! It's much the same as accusing all christians of being YECs - deeply patronising and rightly dismissed out of hand by anyone with whom you are debating.

Even if you can back up your definition with references and citations, you are still committing an "Argument from Authority" fallacy - which is often no better than a strawman, or, at best, only a marginal improvement.

In an ideal world, all participants would agree on a definition up front - however broad that definition may be - but with something as nebulous and subjective as feminism, expecting this is unrealistic. You just have to accept that pretty much everyone else in the debate will have their own take on it and roll with the punches.

Though you are just using an "Appeal To Purity" argument/fallacy. What you are saying is that I can never attack feminism because there is an arbitrary (pure) idea of feminism somewhere. No matter how complling the evidence is against feminism it can't be criticized ever. I don't think I can get on board with an idea being ring fenced. I also don't like the way it is claimed that to be against feminism is to be against women's rights. If I used the same argument against women's rights that I am using against feminism I will fall flat on my face. Women's (all) rights movements are issue specific and goal oriented. I have always believed in equal rights for everyone.

ANOTHER FUCKING STRAWMAN!!111!!

Saying, "What you're saying..." when it clearly is NOT what I am saying is the very epitome of strawmanship!

Where have I said that you can never attack feminism? Or any of the other bullshit you just shovelled into my mouth? Jesus Fucking H Christ in a gaybar! I see why they think you're such a poor opponent now. You seriously have no idea what you're talking about, do you? You didn't read my measured response to your OP - you simply ASSUMED that it meant something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT and went for the jugular - ending up with a mouthful of straw!

Fuck off and wank yourself silly over putting me in my place here. Bask in the warm glow of smug self-satisfaction that only the truly ignorant of their own shortcomings can know.

Re: Where have I said that you can never attack feminism? You were erecting barriers with the argument that 'not all feminists are like that' Would any other ideology or religion be given the same 'get out of jail free card.' I did read your post I just didn't see anything new there. If you are new to the anti-feminism argument you would realize how tiresome it becomes. That doesn't excuse my curt dismissal of your post though so I apologise for that. If you follow the way I debate (whether you think it is poor or not) I never induge in triumphalism as I just state my case and leave it at that. I think it is the upmost arrogance to claim you mullered them or you trashed their arguments just because you offer a counterpoint. Nobody has the right to be the arbitor of any debate they are involved in. I hope you continue to give your input though.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Dave, yes, EVERY other ideology uses the same get-out-of-jail-free-card!

That is why you can't argue like that! Doing so makes you look stupid! There is no point arguing about creationism with a christian that is comfortable with evolution. There is no point arguing about Stalinism with a Trotskyist. There is no point arguing about Sunni Islam with a Shiite!

In exactly the same way you cannot make a cogent argument against feminism by lumping them all together in one homogenous, one-size-fits-all mass! Don't you get that?

You need to address each individual feminist on their own merits and discuss their concept of feminism. If your arguments have validity, that should be no problem. If they don't, well...

[DaveDodo007]

Dave : you should have stayed no matter how unpopular you would have become. I know that it can be hard and the two current members that are very unpopular have been taking years of abuse but they are still there. Now that you have decided to leave there are fewer alternative voices. It is already known that there was concerted effort to get rid of two undesirables and now you have gone also. I am an insider and so it does not really affect me though it is not about me any way. There should be a rule that undesirables are more protected so that the majority can not get rid of them just for being unpopular. To even things out a little all the undesirables should be made life members. This would mean they could never force any one to leave the forum less they actually wanted to. Now there would be a very long thread indeed about that with everyone complaining that it was favouritism. However when some are more equal than others there is nothing wrong in reversing that imbalance. Now I know that none of this has actually got anything to do with the subject matter of the thread but now that you have decided to leave Rat Skep it is as you say academic Still at least there will always be one undesirable over there no matter how unpopular he becomes. He can be irritating as hell but I would much rather have him in the forum than outside it. I often wonder why he stays given the level of abuse he has to endure so if he reading this he might enlighten me because I am genuinely curious

I didn't leave just because I was unpopular as I wont be winning any popularity awards at Rationalia now. I left because it was just a matter of time before they would have banned me for being a troll, I didn't want to give them the satisfaction.

[surreptitious57]

I have absolutely zero desire to discuss Mick with you for very obvious reasons but what happened to him is symptomatic of something bigger. But I am merely observing what is happening. I am not getting involved in forum politics beyond that because I have no influence and also that is not why I am here. I am simply commenting on a point of view just like I would on any subject matter. Now sadly this issue has a tendency to be seen in black and white terms by both sides and therefore can make any meaningful discussion next to impossible. I am way more easy going than you with regard to who I engage with in cyber space and which may explain why we do not see eye to eye on this. But I refuse to get emotional over something which does not actually affect me personally. All I am interested in is providing reasons as to why I post what I do and I mean in a general sense. That is my one and only job here. I am not interested in convincing any one of anything and also care as little for being right or wrong as much as possible. Nothing I say is set in stone out side of the demonstrably obvious. And I have zero intention of leaving Rat Skep as Seth suggested of Ani. For I will stay there till I either die or it crashes. I am going off on a bit of a tangent here but sometimes background is necessary to provide context. Anyway that it is from my neutral and dispassionate perspective or as neutral and dispassionate as I can be making allowances for the fact that I am unfortunately only human. And so I would like it if you did not have any expectations of me. Since not being aware of what they actually are I can not be held responsible if I fall short of them as I am sure to do

[piscator]

Dave, yes, EVERY other ideology uses the same get-out-of-jail-free-card!

That is why you can't argue like that! Doing so makes you look stupid! There is no point arguing about creationism with a christian that is comfortable with evolution.

There will be after you tell him the Creationist has the more logical stance wrt scripture, just like ISIS.

[Seth]

Feminism is a man hating ideology and if you subscribe to that ideology you are a man hater by default.

Bullshit! Fucking strawman2!

Read my post above.

It's not a strawman, it's his opinion. He's not misquoting or distorting YOUR argument, he's making his own original statement of opinion about feminism. You may disagree with his analysis, but it's not a fallacious argument.

[DaveDodo007]

Are you claiming I'm not allowed to have a rant now and again, not familiar with my posting style are you.

I dunno. Do you still beat your wife?

Shouldn't that be 'when did you stop beating your wife' for the full Kafkatrapping fallacy?