- 08 Apr 2017 01:46
#14794839
This is not a rebuttal.
This is not a rebuttal either.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
Also, you have not rebutted my statement about dogmatic adherence to a legalistic ideal.
If you are dismissing it as irrelevant or non-critical without actually analysing it, then you are judging it before even exposing yourself to the required informattion. You are prejudging. Prejudice.
Not in my experience.
Repeating your claims in a long winded way and with some spicy swearing thrown is probably cathartic.
It is not an argument.
You seem to have no evidence or logic to support your disdian of feminists. Form this, I will conclude that your argument is without merit. Have a good one.
There is a crack in everything,
That's how the light gets in...
Perkwunos wrote:"The few".
This is not a rebuttal.
Irrelevant. I want evidence or I want the person to shut the hell up.
This is not a rebuttal either.
Still haven't defined "logic".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
- Logic (from the Ancient Greek: λογική, logikḗ[1]), originally meaning "the word" or "what is spoken" (but coming to mean "thought" or "reason"), is generally held to consist of the systematic study of the form of arguments. A valid argument is one where there is a specific relation of logical support between the assumptions of the argument and its conclusion. (In ordinary discourse, the conclusion of such an argument may be signified by words like therefore, hence, ergo and so on.)
There is no universal agreement as to the exact scope and subject matter of logic (see § Rival conceptions, below), but it has traditionally included the classification of arguments, the systematic exposition of the 'logical form' common to all valid arguments, the study of inference, including fallacies, and the study of semantics, including paradoxes. Historically, logic has been studied in philosophy (since ancient times) and mathematics (since the mid-1800s), and recently logic has been studied in computer science, linguistics, psychology, and other fields.
Also, you have not rebutted my statement about dogmatic adherence to a legalistic ideal.
It's not prejudice. Feminists and SocJus in general, and indeed the left more generally, are full of groupthink. Human society is full of groupthink.
If you are dismissing it as irrelevant or non-critical without actually analysing it, then you are judging it before even exposing yourself to the required informattion. You are prejudging. Prejudice.
In practice "mansplaining" is "a man saying something I don't like".
Not in my experience.
They're not. The world is full of people who are filled near to bursting with shit and just don't know or care. What I'm saying is that feminists and other elements of SocJus think they're light-years ahead of knuckle-draggers who get all their news from Fox and WND and Newsbusters and they're not. They're all about equally benighted, and they're going to stay that way until they adopt an unadulterated, rigorously empirical way of thinking about the world.
Again, and this really bears repeating: there is absolutely no evidence that left-wing ideologues are any better at forecasting and understanding facts about the world we live in than their right-wing counterparts. The only way to get yourself off the hook for this charge is not to piss and moan about how mean and unjust it is to see things empirically but instead just to suck it up and start doing it. Or continue to live in this bubble where you choose your beliefs according to what you think is moral. But don't expect me not to point it out.
Repeating your claims in a long winded way and with some spicy swearing thrown is probably cathartic.
It is not an argument.
You seem to have no evidence or logic to support your disdian of feminists. Form this, I will conclude that your argument is without merit. Have a good one.
There is a crack in everything,
That's how the light gets in...