Why are we obsessed with feminism again?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-09-2014, 09:24 AM
RE: Why are we obsessed with feminism again?
(01-09-2014 09:20 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(01-09-2014 08:46 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Just as civil rights for Blacks improved conditions across the board giving equal rights to women improves things for everyone.

However civil right is not just a black thing. The difference is as feminism is always for women only, civil rights is for the rights of people. Heck when the blacks where doing civil rights so where the Hispanics. So if the civil rights of blacks helps others it is no surprise as civil rights by definition is for rights of all.

Go back and read some of the speeches during the civil rights movement, they were almost exclusively aimed at the black populace and equality with the white. However they had the effect of raising everyone up.

(01-09-2014 09:20 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(01-09-2014 08:46 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  You my friend are far to hung up on that one phrase that you miss the rest of the goal.

Well that is what feminism is by definition. Can one act form feminism cross over and positively affect men? Sure. Does that mean feminism is also for the rights of men? No. Can feminist want to help the rights of others? Yes. You see I have no problem with feminism, nor do I have a problem with its stance in fact I am for it. However for me to be a feminist would be redundant. You see as one that you would call a humanist I support rights of all humans. And because women are female humans as men are male humans, they too are part of it. I am not saying there is nothing wrong with feminism, or that it is useless, but to say feminism is for the rights of all and not just women, would contradict every definition and even contradict the origin of the name, and that when a feminist steps out of helping only womens rights, then they are not doing anything relating to feminism. No and I do not mean we pass one right for women that ended up helping men in the process, I mean they work to help men for one right, that would not be feminism, even if feminist are involved.

You again miss the point.


(01-09-2014 09:20 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(01-09-2014 08:46 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  You are young still and rather inexperienced so it is understandable why you think like you do, but it does not make it correct.

I hate this excuse. If this was valid, then every time a debate a creationist your age and up my well placed argument would be dismissed with this. I understand if we were in the age without the internet, but we have the internet. Now everyone of any age can be informed with one bing or google search. It is not so much the inexperienced part, but the young part. My problem is that this is used to dismiss someone who is young in order to make it seem easy. Also understanding me is impossible.

You know the old joke about teenagers knowing everything. It is a cliche for a reason. If you argued a creationist using the same reasoning and method you have used here then the creationist would have good reason not to trust your opinion.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Revenant77x's post
01-09-2014, 10:02 AM
RE: Why are we obsessed with feminism again?
(01-09-2014 09:24 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Go back and read some of the speeches during the civil rights movement, they were almost exclusively aimed at the black populace and equality with the white. However they had the effect of raising everyone up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movements_for_civil_rights

I am not denying civil rights affected all those in america at the time, but it was not just a black thing.

(01-09-2014 09:24 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  You again miss the point.

No I get your point. You are saying feminism, even if for womens rights there can be positive benefits for non-female humans as well depending on the situation at hand. What I am saying is that even though feminism can potential help those non-females, it does not mean that those non-females where in mind while doing it. I am not arguing anything is wrong with it, but just that it is not a movement of support all like humanism is, unless we change the definition of feminism by consensus to mean rights for all humans or something like that. Then I can see feminism being a working force for right of all.



(01-09-2014 09:24 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  You know the old joke about teenagers knowing everything. It is a cliche for a reason. If you argued a creationist using the same reasoning and method you have used here then the creationist would have good reason not to trust your opinion.

Good thing I always say I don't know everything. When I am wrong, you must show it using definitions and evidence. If you don't does not mean I will be right. There are moments when I am wrong. And when I am, I go and tell people I made a mistake. For example I used to say turtles were sort of reptiles, until I discovered they where reptiles, then I told my friends as was wrong and had to show them why. Also I had this excuse used once before when I showed an adult they were wrong using sources, but then when I did the same thing again with something they agreed on all of a sudden my teenage inexperience disappears. It seems this is used when convenient. And that is how I debate creationist, to the point that many switch the subject once I show sources they are wrong and define they words they are using in the wrong way. In fact so far many people who also adressed the same creationist either a) just called them stupid over and over with out explaining why or b) they say the same arguments I did.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2014, 04:00 PM
RE: Why are we obsessed with feminism again?
(01-09-2014 07:23 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(31-08-2014 07:43 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  Well what do you expect, feminism by definition is for women's rights only...

Not according to feminists.

So there's that.

Actions speak louder than words.

If somebody points out a fallacy, and you call fallacy fallacy, that doesn't mean you are right. That just means you committed the very fallacy you accused your opponent of.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2014, 04:09 PM
RE: Why are we obsessed with feminism again?
(01-09-2014 04:00 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  
(01-09-2014 07:23 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Not according to feminists.

So there's that.

Actions speak louder than words.

Equal rights for women infers equal rights for men. A can't be equal to B if B is not equal to A.

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2014, 04:14 PM
RE: Why are we obsessed with feminism again?
(01-09-2014 04:00 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  
(01-09-2014 07:23 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Not according to feminists.

So there's that.

Actions speak louder than words.

It certainly appears that you are generalizing the actions of a few to the many.

That is not valid logically or morally. 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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
01-09-2014, 04:15 PM
RE: Why are we obsessed with feminism again?
(01-09-2014 04:09 PM)One Above All Wrote:  
(01-09-2014 04:00 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  Actions speak louder than words.

Equal rights for women infers equal rights for men. A can't be equal to B if B is not equal to A.

"Implies", but yeah.

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
01-09-2014, 04:18 PM
RE: Why are we obsessed with feminism again?
(01-09-2014 04:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-09-2014 04:09 PM)One Above All Wrote:  Equal rights for women infers equal rights for men. A can't be equal to B if B is not equal to A.

"Implies", but yeah.

If I wanted to say "implies", I would have. A=B infers that B=A, or the equation makes no sense. A cannot be equal to B, yet B different from A. Such a thing is impossible.

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2014, 04:28 PM
RE: Why are we obsessed with feminism again?
(01-09-2014 04:18 PM)One Above All Wrote:  
(01-09-2014 04:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  "Implies", but yeah.

If I wanted to say "implies", I would have. A=B infers that B=A, or the equation makes no sense. A cannot be equal to B, yet B different from A. Such a thing is impossible.

No, 'implies' is the proper word. One thing implies another, one's statement implies something to another.

One infers from a statement or fact.

A=B implies B=A.

From A=B, I can infer that B=A.

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
01-09-2014, 04:44 PM
RE: Why are we obsessed with feminism again?
(01-09-2014 04:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-09-2014 04:18 PM)One Above All Wrote:  If I wanted to say "implies", I would have. A=B infers that B=A, or the equation makes no sense. A cannot be equal to B, yet B different from A. Such a thing is impossible.

No, 'implies' is the proper word. One thing implies another, one's statement implies something to another.

One infers from a statement or fact.

A=B implies B=A.

From A=B, I can infer that B=A.

I had never heard those definitions. Here's what I heard:
One thing implies another if it's not stated outright, like scoffing when someone says something egocentric. Someone or something infers something else if it is stated outright, like when someone outright calls someone else an idiot.

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2014, 04:49 PM
RE: Why are we obsessed with feminism again?
(01-09-2014 04:44 PM)One Above All Wrote:  
(01-09-2014 04:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, 'implies' is the proper word. One thing implies another, one's statement implies something to another.

One infers from a statement or fact.

A=B implies B=A.

From A=B, I can infer that B=A.

I had never heard those definitions. Here's what I heard:
One thing implies another if it's not stated outright, like scoffing when someone says something egocentric. Someone or something infers something else if it is stated outright, like when someone outright calls someone else an idiot.


Choose Your Words - imply/ infer

Imply and infer are opposites, like a throw and a catch. To imply is to hint at something, but to infer is to make an educated guess.
The speaker does the implying, and the listener does the inferring.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: