Gonna try acting like a dick towards NT party girls

Post Reply New Topic

Now THERE'S a buzz-kill.

Have I told you lately how much I love you?

BTW, I am not one of those two categories of women, and I am not a lesbian, or asexual, or ugly.

You too!

Freud was a great psychologist but he was not a biologist.

Freud was very creative with ideas very little of it it was backed with evidence, but even he would call his followers fanatics. After all he called one of his biggest fans Dali a fanatic. Many Freudian idea like repression have been objectively disproved.

Actually, the argument started from page one where the OP began the argument(If that is what you want to call this). Or maybe you can call it a debate. Since an online debate is even better.



I really wouldn't call that attacking her. I was just merely trying to categorize her(Which seems impossible by the way).



Feminism is believing that women are equal to men. I agree with this statement.



So am I.



Is this because I called her an uber-feminist? Well; she is an uber-feminist(To the point were it sometimes gets annoying).

It's hard to be PG with people who think their gender are superior to the other gender. And yes, women think they are superior to men also.



I fail online debating 101.



I'm not questioning what the law says. It makes itself quite clear. I am questioning the reason why the person put themselves in such a vulnerable position in the first place. With makes me question who is really the one at fault?

I think they both are at fault.

That's a hard one to argue, given that "uber-feminist" isn't actually a word, and you get to make up your own definition of it.

If someone who doesn't like hateful comments about women and speaks up against them is an "uber-feminist", then yeah, that's me.

Well Julie, you are about as unpredictable as a flying cow.

I really don't like how unpredictable you are. It is impossible to categorize you since you indeed really are unique.

First of all, it would be spelled "über". Es ist ü. "Uber" hat doch keine beteudung.

Secondly, your categorisation is inaccurate and fails to address her attacks, regardless of the accuracy of you categorisation. You assume entirely too much in your categorisation it that you assume juliekitty's misandry. There has not been sufficient evidence to prove such a claim. She has never stated that women are superior to men, nor has she stated that men are inherently dangerous or bad. What she stated was that "ladder theory" and other theories of this nature are misogynistic. One could infer that she is attributing this to a patriarchy. However, you have, from very little evidence, identified her as belonging a large group, and then extrapolated the characteristics of that group to her. These characteristics are based solely on her belonging to the group. This argument is circular.

x has some characteristics that members of set A have.
x belongs to set A.
x has all of the characteristics that members of set A must have.
But, if x does not exhibit all the characteristics that members of set A must have, then x does not belong to set A.

Ex. An ellipse appears round. Circles appear round. Therefore, the ellipse is a circle. A circle is a set of points equidistant from a given point. Therefore, the ellipse is a set of points equidistant from a given point. The fallacy of this conclusion is that we assume that the ellipse is a circle based on a shared characteristic between the two, and then assign all characteristics to the circle to the ellipse. The rational observer says, "This ellipse is not a set of points equidistant to a given point. Because a circle must be a a set of points equidistant to a given point, this ellipse is not a circle."

I saw in your profile that you are neurotypical. One difference that I have noticed between people with AS and neurotypical people is that neurotypical people tend to identify people by the groups to which the belong, whereas people with AS tend to identify people much more individualistically. (Yes, I know I have grouped people with AS and neurotypical people. I know this is ironic. I am an iron.)



In order to be at fault for an event, a person must make a conscious choice to which the event would be a definite result. Does vulnerability guarantee attack? Or does it simply increase one's risk? Does it constitute partial guilt, or rather unwiseness? I think that the answer is quite clear.

Thanks!



Good.



Oh, stop with the flattery. You'll make me lose my edge.

What an insult. Juliekitty, you're UNIQUE. You may proceed to cry now.

Lulz!!

As comical as this is; I'd say you went through great lengths to attack my post solely because my profile says neurotypical. It IS funny even though it is completely irrelevant.

You should also check the spelling of categorisation.

I'm only going against your grammar because you tried to correct the spelling of a word that I made up .(I think that qualifies as cheating)

The end result is that JulieKitty knows that she is a feminist; and really all I am doing was joking with her. If I didn't think she was aware of it I wouldn't be doing it and if I have offended her I will PM her and apologize.

While I respect that you are sticking up for her I don't think that this is as serious between me/her(I could be wrong though) as you make it sound.

I would end it right there, but then you give me a Math example and tell me that I group people. Well....everyone groups people.

This seems to me like you think that all neurotypicals are the same. This is grouping.





Then(from your perspective) women would never have been at fault. They would just happen to go to the bar and get drunk without a care in the world because there is only an XX% chance that they could get raped and even if they did it wouldn't be their fault anyway. And that small chance is most likely a mere vulnerability anyway so .....

As the Descent would word it; "If There's No Risk, There's No Point!."

The fact of the matter is that the person who puts themselves at risk is equally as responsible as the one who commits the crime.

I don't even want to dwell I that because I don't even consider it an argument.

Last edited by Brian003 on 08 Jan 2008, 9:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Given that that word applies to people who think women ought to have the right to vote, work, own property, and not be beaten by their husbands, you aren't exactly going out on a limb here.



I don't get the joke. Maybe it's because I'm aspie.



You're right. It isn't serious. But that's because I don't take people who spout that kind of nonsense seriously; and also because I'm more than a match for you.

It is impossible for me to compete with you when you don't understand 95% of what I write.

Maybe it is because you are superior to a mere male also. Haha.

Not surprising, largely in the sense that third-wavers have a lot of the qualities that jkrane is looking to possess - its just flipping the script. When you feel like your part of a superior race in relation to the opposite sex (I know women aren't out with it but from any female friend I've had they'll say it time and time again), when your hardcore liberal or even going as far as hardcore socialist, your going to be a bundle of pure unsheilded guile and sexuality because its the angle of yourself that your persuing and running with. Kinda nice that hot-headed Republican girls can master that trick just as well though .

Last edited by techstepgenr8tion on 08 Jan 2008, 10:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.