I find it amazing that (some) people who claim intellectual complexity suddenly have difficulty over the most simple questions and points.
When did I claim intellectual complexity? I find it amazing that (some) people passively refer indirectly about the person that are directly addressing.
BTW, I almost always responds, when someone addresses me. You addressed me and asked me about anarchism, then responded to me about something about complexity, and then responded with a disregarding anecdote about conversations you have with women and what not. So was there a point about asking me about my how content I am or or not? I mean, I'm sorry you think points that are never stated and are masked in non sequitur questions are somehow the 'most simple questions and points.'
Then why respond again? I only asked:- Are you classist? Would you found a club and insist on controlling who could join. Would you operate an exclusive world? Would you start a thread and insist that you would decide who could play or debate?
Well........would you?
Classist being someone who discriminates against someone because of their social or economic class, then no, I am not a classist. I would not found a club and insist on controlling who could join; as evidenced by the fact I have never founded a club at all in the first place. As for the second question, I have no idea what to 'operate an exclusive world' means. Are you asking, if I had the option, would I have, like, my own Earth where I control all the physics of that Earth or something, so that I could control others in some weird abstract manifestation? No, I don't think so. Would I start a thread and insist that you would decide who could play or debate? If I wanted to limit a thread to a particular discussion of people, I would be it in the correct thread. Like, if I wanted a Muslim only thread, I would likely put it in the same-faith debates. I'm actually in the process of trying to start the first 'private debate' on the thread since, they are new and all and never been tried. So, to answer your question... yea, I suppose I would since out of the couple hundred threads I'm started, I'm sure a handful have stipulations about who I am asking specifically to debate.
But, I'm really not sure where any of this going. I'm sorry that your point is lost to me. Perhaps it is just so simple that my mind just simply can't see it. I must be one of those guys who have over-intellectualized the world to a degree that I've lost out on some fundamental happiness or satisfaction that I guess others are all in on because they've found ways to narrate-- to themselves-- the world and their experiences in the simplest ways possible, and, admittedly only find value in the simplest of explanations, and that complex explanations are just false by vice of being inconveniently complex.
Nay! A confirmation of your suspicions that your debate-method is disregarded. Different?
Well, I believe what I said to be true, which means that what you said what also be true. But I still hold there is little regard in the assessment of how debates should be conducted. For one, I find it hilarious that this is considered a winning debate:
Quote:
Well show me your feminist philosophy instead of going on and on about nothing.
Im still waiting for you to give a creditable response. I havent gotten one yet.
You said:
Originally Posted by uberrobonomicon4000
Feminism loses all credibility soon as someone brings up issues besides equal rights. Because it gets into issues with how people should act and treat one another (men and women), in public, that they should have learned in first grade, on the playground or in their backyard. That is just the sad reality of it and to think some adults want to act like children disgusts me.
...snip...
Furthermore, you said that Feminism "gets into issues with how people should act and treat one another (men and women), in public, that they should have learned in first grade, on the playground or in their backyard."
I asked who in feminism said something about how people show act, and that we should teach first graders about feminism, on the playground or in the backyard. If you can't quote some feminist text as saying that, then you just completely made up the claim that feminism gets into issues and says that should be learned in first grade, on the playground or in their backyard.
Quote: Point out the double standard then and stop going on and on about nothing.
I just did, but I will again.
You said:
"Feminism loses all credibility soon as someone brings up issues besides equal rights. Because it gets into issues with how people should act and treat one another (men and women), in public, that they should have learned in first grade, on the playground or in their backyard. That is just the sad reality of it and to think some adults want to act like children disgusts me."
You implied that because feminism gets into issues with how people should act, it loses all credibility.
In the same post, you also said:
"Women can handle their own issues and men can handle theirs. As in women can debate other women on topics that concern them just like men can. If there is to be some common ground between two subjects based on equality, then men shouldnt interfere with the progress of women and women shouldnt interfere with the progress of men."
You said that men shouldn't interfere with the progress of women and women shouldn't interfere with the progress of men. Interfering is an action. If you say someone shouldn't interfere, you are saying they shouldn't act.
So why does feminism lose all credibility when it gets into "issues with how people should act," but you can comment on how men and women shouldn't interfere and expect to retain credibility.
It's a double standard because when feminism comments on people "should act," it loses credibility.
But when you comment on how people "should act," you are saying so as if you had credibility.
Either something loses credibility when it talks about issues like "how people should act" or it doesn't. But if you maintain that feminism loses credibility when it talks about people should act but you don't when you talk about how people should act, then you are applying two different standards to the same thing, depending on who is doing it. You hold yourself and feminism to two different standards.
This was completely ignored. Of course, after being accused of engaging in "antics those who choose not to debate the topics."
I also find it confusing that you come back at this point and say:
For me, I have found that men cannot fundamentally be male and 'allowed to be feminist' thru' and thru, at the same time. But we can be egalitarians, and that reaches far beyond, I believe. I not only think uberrobonomicon4000 was very brave to run this thread. I think that, fundamentally, he is right.
If this was a real debate, he would have to win my vote
After this dialogue 6 days ago:
LOL did you catch that he said that a man CANNOT be a feminist?
Do you agree or disagree?
Hi.......... I agree that a man can be a feminist.. I think a man can choose to call himself anything he feels happy with, or correct with, so I am comfortable in accepting a feminist male as is. And so I feel that a man CAN be a feminist by title. And I feel that a woman, a feminist, could accept an equal rights activist male as an egalitarian. Both males having similar tenets in the area of female rights, but one choosing a title showing more focus upon that, whilst the other choosing to focus upon equal rights in a whole mass of varying areas. Both could, for instance, walk in a pro-feminine parade, or whatever.
But I feel close to Uberonon.... in his choice of title for equality tenets.
Hey, I'm all for a man being able to identify himself however he wants. More power to him.
Where in your position are you in agreement with the proclamation that a man CANNOT be a feminist, however?
I think I have just answered this one post up...... or two osts up, maybe.
So, over the course of six days you went from agreeing that men "
I agree that a man can be a feminist.. I think a man can choose to call himself anything he feels happy with, or correct with, so I am comfortable in accepting a feminist male as is." to "
For me, I have found that men cannot fundamentally be male and 'allowed to be feminist' thru' and thru, at the same time."
I guess a male can be a feminist, by but title only, or something? So much for simple...
Er - one who embraces the philosophy and cause of feminism is a feminist. I don't know how I can make it any simpler for you.
You don't have to be Christ to be Christian either.
Apparently twelve words isn't simple enough, Alceste.
