Christina Hoff Sommers Defeats Feminist Video Game Alarmism with Logic and Data
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-09-2014, 02:57 PM
RE: Christina Hoff Sommers Defeats Feminist Video Game Alarmism with Logic and Data
(17-09-2014 02:46 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  
(17-09-2014 02:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  His position absolutely is a strawman because he paints all feminists with that brush.

How about if I say "Muslims are terrorists"? Or "Germans kill Jews"?

Well I don't hear you condemning radical feminists. You actually jump right on board with them, and praise Sarkeesian and Quinn.

Please quote me where I said anything even remotely resembling that.

If you can't, I will await your abject apology. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
17-09-2014, 03:23 PM
RE: Christina Hoff Sommers Defeats Feminist Video Game Alarmism with Logic and Data
(17-09-2014 02:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(17-09-2014 02:46 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  Well I don't hear you condemning radical feminists. You actually jump right on board with them, and praise Sarkeesian and Quinn.

Please quote me where I said anything even remotely resembling that.

If you can't, I will await your abject apology. Drinking Beverage

I wasn't talking specifically about you, I am talking about the feminists on this forum.

Paleoliberal • English Nationalist • Zionist • Rightist • Anti-Islam • Neoconservative • Republican • Linguistic Revivalist and Purist

Happily Divorced from the Left!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2014, 03:31 PM
RE: Christina Hoff Sommers Defeats Feminist Video Game Alarmism with Logic and Data
(17-09-2014 02:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(17-09-2014 02:46 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  Well I don't hear you condemning radical feminists. You actually jump right on board with them, and praise Sarkeesian and Quinn.

Please quote me where I said anything even remotely resembling that.

If you can't, I will await your abject apology. Drinking Beverage

Your statement was a direct response to my post.

I await your apology.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
17-09-2014, 03:33 PM
RE: Christina Hoff Sommers Defeats Feminist Video Game Alarmism with Logic and Data
(17-09-2014 02:55 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Vosur, I would like to publicly apologise for bringing up a personal matter like this. It was not cool at all and I will not do so again. I'm sorry.
Thank you, Revs. I accept your apology. Hug

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
17-09-2014, 03:52 PM
RE: Christina Hoff Sommers Defeats Feminist Video Game Alarmism with Logic and Data
(17-09-2014 03:23 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  
(17-09-2014 02:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  Please quote me where I said anything even remotely resembling that.

If you can't, I will await your abject apology. Drinking Beverage

I wasn't talking specifically about you, I am talking about the feminists on this forum.

Which feminists?

Oh, you mean the ones who think you don't know what the fuck you're talking about?


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
17-09-2014, 06:38 PM
RE: Christina Hoff Sommers Defeats Feminist Video Game Alarmism with Logic and Data
(17-09-2014 03:31 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(17-09-2014 02:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  Please quote me where I said anything even remotely resembling that.

If you can't, I will await your abject apology. Drinking Beverage

Your statement was a direct response to my post.

I await your apology.

Perhaps "you" was not the pronoun I was looking for. "Some of you" or "they" would have been a better choice. I apologize.

Paleoliberal • English Nationalist • Zionist • Rightist • Anti-Islam • Neoconservative • Republican • Linguistic Revivalist and Purist

Happily Divorced from the Left!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2014, 06:40 PM
RE: Christina Hoff Sommers Defeats Feminist Video Game Alarmism with Logic and Data
(17-09-2014 03:52 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(17-09-2014 03:23 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  I wasn't talking specifically about you, I am talking about the feminists on this forum.

Which feminists?

Oh, you mean the ones who think you don't know what the fuck you're talking about?

Revs and especially EK have been promoting Sarkeesian and Quinn.

Paleoliberal • English Nationalist • Zionist • Rightist • Anti-Islam • Neoconservative • Republican • Linguistic Revivalist and Purist

Happily Divorced from the Left!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2014, 06:51 PM
RE: Christina Hoff Sommers Defeats Feminist Video Game Alarmism with Logic and Data
(17-09-2014 02:44 PM)morondog Wrote:  ... Painting the entire feminist movement with the brush that they are extremist is *not* a strawman? Rolleyes

(17-09-2014 02:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  His position absolutely is a strawman because he paints all feminists with that brush.

Feels more like "No True FemiNazi" than strawman to me. "FemiNazi" would qualify as a strawman but don't think he's used that yet..

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2014, 10:03 PM
RE: Christina Hoff Sommers Defeats Feminist Video Game Alarmism with Logic and Data
(17-09-2014 02:34 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  
(17-09-2014 01:44 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  No Vosur, he takes already extremists who are not actually feminists and then takes them up to pure strawman status. I am actually surprised how often you are quietly on the side of Res and his fellow know-nothing blowhard spine.

So no true scotsman it is then.

Try again.

rational Wrote:No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy by which an individual attempts to avoid being associated with an unpleasant act by asserting that no true member of the group they belong to would do such a thing; this fallacy also applies to defining a term or criteria biasedly as to defend it from counterargument which can be identified as a biased, persuasive, or rhetorical definition. Instead of acknowledging that some members of a group have undesirable characteristics, the fallacy tries to redefine the group to exclude them. Sentences such as "all members of X have desirable trait Y" then become tautologies, because Y becomes a requirement of membership in X.

Feminism is defined as the belief in total equality of the sexest, plus or minus a bit of word mincing. Anyone who believes one sex is superior to another sex is, by definition, not a feminist. This is not the true scots fallacy, where you exclude members based on no clear definition or objective rule, this is a reasoned distinction based on the definition of the word "feminism".

To form it in a deductive logical argument

Feminist believe in gender equality.

If you believe in gender equality, then you are a feminist (from defition of feminist)
Some X does not believe in gender equality (observed in so called "feminazi")
Some X is not a feminist.

if A , then B
Not A
Therefore not B

Now if you were versed in logic you would say "but wait a minute, if A is false that doesn't imply that B is false", and you would be right. Examine the truth table for "If A then B"



A B F
---------------
T T | T
T F | F
F T | T
F F | T


However, if you study logic formal logic then you would know that the "F then T = T" is the trivially true case. You cannot determine anything about the truth value of B if A is false. If you cannot prove it false it can still be true, therefore it is assumed to be true. That statement could be evaluated as either true or false depending on the value of B, which is yet determined.

However, in the example I gave the correct interpretation of the statement "If you believe in gender equality, then you are a feminist" is not the if structure, but the If and only if structure. To rewrite it, so that it means semantically the same thing but has a negative truth evaluation:

If and only if you believe in gender equality, then you are a feminst
some X does not believe in gender equality
some X is not a feminist

If and only if A, then B
not A
Therefore not B

P Q P if and only if Q
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F T

My encouragement for you, not that you will take it, not that you will understand why calling people out for the "not true scotts" fallacy was in inappropriate application of said fallacy, is to read a fucking book. You are young, and very subject to your biases. You are not properly educated and you are arguing with people who are better educated, older, and many of them, a great deal more intelligent than yourself. You could take the opportunity to expand your knowledge, but then you might run into the nasty prospect of having to admit that you are wrong. Can't do that, you are right about everything all the time (of course).

People who know a lot of things arrive at such a place by listening to other people, particularly people who do not agree with them. If you are ever going to arrive at such a place, you will have to think better and gain some objectivity.

In the mean time, you can feel free to do all of your emotional and intellectual development some place else. I am so sick of you vomiting your ignorance all over this forum. Talk about things you do know something about. You lack both the maturity, the knowledge, and the critical thinking skills to contribute anything to this topic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Michael_Tadlock's post
17-09-2014, 10:28 PM
RE: Christina Hoff Sommers Defeats Feminist Video Game Alarmism with Logic and Data
(17-09-2014 06:40 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  
(17-09-2014 03:52 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Which feminists?

Oh, you mean the ones who think you don't know what the fuck you're talking about?

Revs and especially EK have been promoting Sarkeesian and Quinn.

Res, I recommend the following regimen to treat your anal glaucoma: You need to get outside. You are seriously lacking in life experience to spout this kind of nonsensical bullshit. Go spend some time with people - away from the computer and video games. Maybe take a sociology course or two. I think you would benefit from a women's studies class since you seem to be so interested in the issue. You also need to take a statistics course so you can more effectively evaluate if you're being fed a line of bullshit or not.

I'm really getting sick of hearing your twisted propaganda. It's really offensive. I put enough personal info in my reply to your bullshit feminism, rape and immigration post that you should understand why I won't repeat it. Quite frankly, it makes me nauseous. You have NO FUCKING CLUE about the real world and how it works.

"If there's a single thing that life teaches us, it's that wishing doesn't make it so." - Lev Grossman
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Nurse's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: