Why creationists can laugh at atheist feminists?

[DaveDodo007]

Would you look at this!! Atheist feminist creationist nazis are trying to entrap our penises!!1! Dave, maybe you are right. Too risky to fuck chicks anymore. What's your animal of choice, Dave?

11150173_884361348290331_7251164625783905300_n.jpg

Lol, more smearing, can't question the current narative and believe the other side may have a point as well. Just call me a heretic and be done with it. Thinking reality has a left wing bias so it can never be questioned is beyond pathetic.

[pErvinalia]

So male victims don't count because their assailant had the same genitalia

Yes, they do. Nobody, including myself, has said otherwise. Now look at the context of this discussion. You keep heaping shit on feminism. I am saying that feminists have good cause to be feminists because most of the violence inflicted on women, that is rape, murder and beatings, is perpetrated on men. Conversely, most of the violence inflicted on men, that is rape, murder and beatings, is also perpetrated on men. So, where is the problem? Feminism or men?

Oh do fuck off, men get drafted when ever there is a war to fight. Men are 95% of the homeless, men make up 98% of work place deaths and the vast majority of work placed injuries. Suicide rates for men are three to one compared to women, women will get a much shorter sentence for committing the same crimes as men. Women can choose to work whilst men have to. Domestic violence rates is 40/60% even though men are shamed into not reporting it.Men are more likely to be the victims of any crime. But we need feminism because white knight manginas like you don't care about the suffering of boys and men. Fuck off and do one.

If you weren't so busy fearing the weaker sex you'd realise that the whole concept of breaking patriarchy is concerned with these things to. Sure, there are the likes of the A+ nutters who don't give much of a fuck about the man side of the equation, but a lot of feminists understand the concept of patriarchy and fight for it's demolition. They are actually your allies, you dumb cunt!

How about some evidence that the Patriarchy exists first or are you right by fiat?

YOU just explained the patriarchy! You appear totally clueless to the issue involved. If you'd just take a minute from calling feminists nazis, and men who support feminism manginas and other names, you might actually learn something.

[pErvinalia]

Would you look at this!! Atheist feminist creationist nazis are trying to entrap our penises!!1! Dave, maybe you are right. Too risky to fuck chicks anymore. What's your animal of choice, Dave?

11150173_884361348290331_7251164625783905300_n.jpg

Lol, more smearing, can't question the current narative and believe the other side may have a point as well. Just call me a heretic and be done with it. Thinking reality has a left wing bias so it can never be questioned is beyond pathetic.

Nah, I'm just taking the piss out of you. What did you expect? As I said earlier, if you want respect at a rationalist site then you've got to be able to show you are rational. All we get from you is drunken rants. At least my ranting is half coherent.

[Hermit]

Sorry for the insults Hermit they were uncalled for.

No worries. I figured you dipped out yet again on a sexcapade and blindly lashed out at anything in the vicinity to relieve your frustration, or you're just one of those boring drunks that one might see on the same bar stool no matter when one goes to the pub, or something like that. Your rages are like water running down a duck's back.

Same with rEv's antics, except he also has a number of redeeming features such as a rudimentary sense of humour, occasional wit and sometimes even some ability to argue sensibly. He thinks he's formidably tough, but here comes the best part: Whenever he gets huffy the image of him as an exuberant, playful dackel that wants to jump on people's laps and be stroked comes to my mind. Then he's just too cute.



People who get annoyed with him make the mistake of taking him, and themselves, too seriously.

[pErvinalia]

I iz serious!!

[Hermit]

Yes. Yes, of course you are.

Now, would you like another treat? You look like you do.

[JimC]

Actually, I think the term "the patriarchy" is rather meaningless, and is used by the rather rigid minority of feminists that Dave takes to be the whole of feminist thought...

[DaveDodo007]

YOU just explained the patriarchy! You appear totally clueless to the issue involved. If you'd just take a minute from calling feminists nazis, and men who support feminism manginas and other names, you might actually learn something.

How did you manage to take that from my post. The Patriarchy in an unevidence social construct and I'm not going to learn anything from someone who has swallowed the feminist kool aid.

[DaveDodo007]

Here we go again, logic for feminists (I know that that is a swear word so please feel free to run to your 'safe places'.)

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/20 ... doctrines/

"Motte and Bailey Doctrine".
This practise of argument supposes a hypothetical medieval settlement containing an open, resource-rich field - the "Motte" - which is practically indefensible, and the fortified "Bailey", which is extremely defensible but ultimately resource poor. In applying this argument, its user will alternate between attacking using incendiary statements that are guaranteed to generate interest and publicity, and will then fall back on highly defensible but ultimately useless statements when refuted.


Example:

(Motte) "All men are rapists! Feminism is the practise of dismantling the patriarchy and taking down the evil men that oppress women!"

(A rebuttal is offered, contradicting their vitriol)

(Bailey) "Feminism is just the humble request that women be treated equally to men. Surely you don't disagree with that, right?"

This process then goes back and forth with the arguer "working the Motte" with gross attack statements that garner followers and make their position strong (or at least visible) and then fall back on neutral or even contradictory statements that their opponent cannot reasonably refute without appearing to be the aggressor; "Why would you say you're against feminism when it's good for everyone???"

Rinse And Repeat.

Anyone would think that being on a forum with the word rational in the name would mean the many of their members would be rational, though those people would be wrong. Look how many conspiracy theorist call themselves truthers. That is why we get so many atheists creationist (or if you want to be pedantic then ideologues) calling themselves feminists.

[pErvinalia]

YOU just explained the patriarchy! You appear totally clueless to the issue involved. If you'd just take a minute from calling feminists nazis, and men who support feminism manginas and other names, you might actually learn something.

How did you manage to take that from my post. The Patriarchy in an unevidence social construct and I'm not going to learn anything from someone who has swallowed the feminist kool aid.

You really are just a ranting bot.

Patriarchy concerns those men's issues you highlighted as well. FFS. Go back to school, learn to think and then do some actual research on the topic instead of just drunken ranting.

[pErvinalia]

Here we go again, logic for feminists (I know that that is a swear word so please feel free to run to your 'safe places'.)

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/20 ... doctrines/

"Motte and Bailey Doctrine".
This practise of argument supposes a hypothetical medieval settlement containing an open, resource-rich field - the "Motte" - which is practically indefensible, and the fortified "Bailey", which is extremely defensible but ultimately resource poor. In applying this argument, its user will alternate between attacking using incendiary statements that are guaranteed to generate interest and publicity, and will then fall back on highly defensible but ultimately useless statements when refuted.


Example:

(Motte) "All men are rapists! Feminism is the practise of dismantling the patriarchy and taking down the evil men that oppress women!"

(A rebuttal is offered, contradicting their vitriol)

(Bailey) "Feminism is just the humble request that women be treated equally to men. Surely you don't disagree with that, right?"

This process then goes back and forth with the arguer "working the Motte" with gross attack statements that garner followers and make their position strong (or at least visible) and then fall back on neutral or even contradictory statements that their opponent cannot reasonably refute without appearing to be the aggressor; "Why would you say you're against feminism when it's good for everyone???"

Rinse And Repeat.

Anyone would think that being on a forum with the word rational in the name would mean the many of their members would be rational, though those people would be wrong. Look how many conspiracy theorist call themselves truthers. That is why we get so many atheists creationist (or if you want to be pedantic then ideologues) calling themselves feminists.

What is irrational is lumping all feminists together. Can you really not see you are the mirror image of an irrational A+'er?? Just review your vitriolic rants here, Dave. You're not here to argue some finer points of a debate. You are here to vent your spleen about how fucked your life allegedly is because of teh womenz. Go and rant on your women-hating websites. We aren't interested in your irrationality here.

[Brian Peacock]

Actually, I think the term "the patriarchy" is rather meaningless, and is used by the rather rigid minority of feminists that Dave takes to be the whole of feminist thought...

Only a patriarchal enabler would say that.

[pErvinalia]

CHECK YER PRIVILEGE, POOFTA!

[DaveDodo007]

Here we go again, logic for feminists (I know that that is a swear word so please feel free to run to your 'safe places'.)

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/20 ... doctrines/

"Motte and Bailey Doctrine".
This practise of argument supposes a hypothetical medieval settlement containing an open, resource-rich field - the "Motte" - which is practically indefensible, and the fortified "Bailey", which is extremely defensible but ultimately resource poor. In applying this argument, its user will alternate between attacking using incendiary statements that are guaranteed to generate interest and publicity, and will then fall back on highly defensible but ultimately useless statements when refuted.


Example:

(Motte) "All men are rapists! Feminism is the practise of dismantling the patriarchy and taking down the evil men that oppress women!"

(A rebuttal is offered, contradicting their vitriol)

(Bailey) "Feminism is just the humble request that women be treated equally to men. Surely you don't disagree with that, right?"

This process then goes back and forth with the arguer "working the Motte" with gross attack statements that garner followers and make their position strong (or at least visible) and then fall back on neutral or even contradictory statements that their opponent cannot reasonably refute without appearing to be the aggressor; "Why would you say you're against feminism when it's good for everyone???"

Rinse And Repeat.

Anyone would think that being on a forum with the word rational in the name would mean the many of their members would be rational, though those people would be wrong. Look how many conspiracy theorist call themselves truthers. That is why we get so many atheists creationist (or if you want to be pedantic then ideologues) calling themselves feminists.

What is irrational is lumping all feminists together. Can you really not see you are the mirror image of an irrational A+'er?? Just review your vitriolic rants here, Dave. You're not here to argue some finer points of a debate.

Not really, I'm providing evidence of their man hate and anyone who doesn't have a problem with their man hate is an enabler. If I was an A+ er I would run off to a 'safe place' and block anybody who disagrees with me whilst calling then name and trying to shame them. Funny how that is more your method than mine.

You are here to vent your spleen about how fucked your life allegedly is because of teh womenz. Go and rant on your women-hating websites. We aren't interested in your irrationality here.

I'm making plenty of points and you just run to the creationist book of arguing to deny them and here we go. I am a women hater because I'm a anti-feminist, nice equivocation you have there. You don't seem to need any more evidence to come to that conclusion even the fact that I'm here debating men should at least tell you how stupid that claim is. Yet I provide loads of evidence that feminists hate men and you claim they don't. That's some fancy cognitive dissonance you have there. No wonder you want a 'rationalist' forum where only people who agree with you can come to as you are just rubbish at debating. I'm still waiting for evidence of that patriarchy you claim exists or do I after prove it doesn't exist as I'm still trying to prove that god doesn't exist and it might take some time.

[laklak]

What if you just don't give a fuck about their 'man hate' or their 'patriarchy' or anything else they have to say? Are you still an 'enabler'? My default answer to any ranting lunatic, be they feminist man haters or chin bearded women haters or fanatic socialists or libertarian laizze whatevers is 'go fuck yourself, I don't give a rat's supporting rectum what you think'. I don't give a shit about patriarchy, or social injustice, or gender discrimination, or racism, or salary differentials, or rape enablers, or starving Ebola ridden child soldiers in central Africa, I don't lose a second of sleep over any of it. Now, try to take MY shit or restrict ME in the name of whatever overridingly important Facebook cause you can't seem to ignore and I'll put a bullet in your head, but otherwise it is of less concern to me than what color underwear PZ Meyers is wanking into today. I've been accused of being a selfish, 'I got mine so fuck you' asshole, and that's actually pretty accurate as far as it goes. Get a fucking life, you might actually enjoy a bit of it. You gonna be dead a LONG damn time, mate, so best enjoy it while you can.