Here’s the entirety of a recent post by an MRA who calls himself Snark:
Uh, dude, I think you’ve confused “feminists” with “Daleks.”
Our new friend Fidelbogen thought this was such a brilliant idea he devoted a post to it himself, declaring:
Such economy, such concision. …
Really now, we wouldn’t go far wrong to make our rhetoric revolve around this above all, and very little more. The saying is deceptively simple, for it goes deep and reaches into many corners.
It puts them on the spot, and nails them there.
I knew Fidelbogen was a bit of a pompous doofus, but this is a whole new level of stupidity for him. I don’t even know what to say about something this idiotic.
Also, check out the comments to Snark’s piece. There’s something about potatoes you kind of have to see to believe.
Let’s not forget Freud abandoned his “seduction theory” due to social pressure. He found most of his female patients being treated for “hysteria” had been sexually abused as children. He called it presexual sexual shock. His colleagues, and their wives, refused to believe sexual abuse occurred so often. That nice Dr. So & So would never do that. Malnurturing wives covered for coabusive relations and target abuse. Freud changed his reality based findings to “wish fulfillment fantasies” more commonly known as the Oedipal complex.
Women, especially feminists, feel the same way about maternal abuse. It just can’t happen that often.
Have those statistics about American women killing more of their own children than any other mothers in the industrialized world sunk in yet?
Maybe it’s just men “whining.”
http//:www.esterson.org/Masson_and_Freuds_seduction_theory.htm
Right back atcha sweetheart.
“Women, especially feminists, feel the same way about maternal abuse. It just can’t happen that often.
“Have those statistics about American women killing more of their own children than any other mothers in the industrialized world sunk in yet?”
Yes, Rev., we know women commit abuse.
No, Rev., we still don’t live in a matriarchy.
““Have those statistics about American women killing more of their own children than any other mothers in the industrialized world sunk in yet?”
Yes, Rev., we know women commit abuse.
No, Rev., we still don’t live in a matriarchy.”
Also, Rev is aware that America is not the only country with a significant feminist presence, right?
I’ve seen lots of cats do it. It sounds a lot like the sound a squirrel makes when angry. I wonder if it confuses their prey into thinking it’s a harmless rodent sneaking up on them
Ok, Dracula answered it.
I never would have guessed it.
Now I know more about cats.
CassandraSays: You mean like how feminist doctrine tells women to dress in lingerie or underwear and march to reclaim “slut”?
katz: Nope, that is an illogical argument. My actual, logical argument is that you cannot prove a negative, therefore the positive is potentially true.
Bagelsan: If only. Too bad all we have is a blog dedicated to quoting random comments out of context and claiming every member of a group agrees with those comments.
Unimaginative: Yep, that completely unrelated, irrelevant comment that does not disprove that “patrirachy is evil” is part of feminist doctrine anymore than quoting some pastor saying, “Christianity is about loving others” disproves that “homosexuality is sinful” is part of Christian doctrine.
Flib: I would agree with you, but then we would both be wrong.
So let me get this straight, toysoldier. You’re gonna keep beating up on strawfeminism because…. we can’t prove a negative?
You might as well just stick your fingers in your ears and say “lalalalala I’m not listening!”
He’s established that you can’t logically prove a negative, and he’s also not gonna rest until we all agree that feminists aren’t keen on the patriarchy. (In the next thread I hope he relentlessly defends “the sky is blue” and “2 + 2 = 4”!)
What is Toysoldier’s actual argument here? If he ever said, somewhere in the last 17 pages I lost track.
So here are things I do not dispute:
* TS’s aunt abused him.
* Feminists are opposed to patriarchy.
Here are the things I do dispute:
* Feminism is bad.
* If there were no feminism, TS’s aunt would not have abused him.
* The abuse of TS was a feminist act and would be recognized as such by feminists.
* Feminism as a movement/ideology/philosophy permits and even encourages and approves of abuse of boys.
Toysoldier, are you claiming any of the three things in the second group? I should point out that saying “show me where I said any of that” isn’t an answer. I’m asking you here and now, do you agree with any of them?
And everyone, if he does not claim any of those things to be true, what are we arguing about?
That said:
Toysoldier:
You should have no problem finding examples from every prominent feminist blog stating that half the population is not fully deserving of human rights. Otherwise, again, on what are you basing your argument?
Is Rev familiar with the fact that hte US is one of the least feminist industrialized nations? I mean, it’s ahead of Japan and China, but says much, that does not.
Toysoldier: You are right, if you agreed with what I was saying, you might be honest for once in this thread. But sadly, one ounce of honesty doesn’t invalidate the rest of your bullshit.
He believed his patients had been abused by their fathers.
….therefore matriarchy?
This is Protocols of the Elders of Zion level shit right here. Are you just spurting words at random by this point?
“Bagelsan: If only. Too bad all we have is a blog dedicated to quoting random comments out of context and claiming every member of a group agrees with those comments. ”
Oh, the delicious irony.
I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I. My name is Toy Soldier, and I can quite literally do this all day.
s/three/four. That’s what happens when you don’t proofread after the last edit.
Shora: The only ones beating up on a straw man are feminists. Look, if you choose to argue that feminism can never cause bad behavior, that is your business. Although I find it juvenile to argue something you readily admit you cannot prove, you are more than welcome to do so. But that does not mean someone who calls you on that is attacking a straw man.
Hershele Ostropoler: No, and I never stated I did. Those four arguments are straw men feminists made. I have an idea of why feminists argued as they did, but it is an impolite inference. I never argued that feminists think half the population is not fully deserving of human rights. My point is that if feminists believe men’s activists frequently argue that half the population is not fully deserving of human rights, feminists should have no problem finding that view expressed on prominent men’s rights blogs.
Flib: I will not insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just wrote.
Toysoldier: bad behavior is different then violent, abusive behavior. No, I don’t think the wish for gender equality (which is the very most basic foundation of feminism) can cause violent, abusive behavior.
Look, you just want to sit there and go feminism is just as bad as the MRM, feminism is a bad thing, and you can’t prove me wrong la lala lala. But you can’t prove you right either, and not only that, you have no intentions of engaging with any kind of mental rigor. It’s all “Feminism made my aunt abusive, therefor feminism causes abuse, therefore feminism is bad QED”
Toysoldier: Stop acting so coy. Come out and say it! You’ve been dishonest and lying since you started posting in this thread! It’s just waiting to burst out of you. That inner troll of yours can only last for so long.
Why? Because you have continually failed to empirically support any of your positions. There is a reason you would never survive in any actual form of debate. Never mind your glaring logic errors and infinite strawmans.
Note how you still never clarify just what it is you are arguing.
So you can never actually have an argument about anything ever, because you can never prove that any point is wrong.
It’s potentially true that I am the reincarnation of Cleopatra. Can you prove that I’m not?
Whether or not that’s relevant to much of anything is an entirely different matter.
“Nope, that is an illogical argument. My actual, logical argument is that you cannot prove a negative, therefore the positive is potentially true.”
…
“So you can never actually have an argument about anything ever, because you can never prove that any point is wrong.”
…
Just reposting Toysolider’s point and Katz’ refutation because…yeah.
No guys, you don’t get it. It’s not that you can never prove any point is wrong, it’s that Toysoldier can always be, “right” if he phrases his unprovable correctly.
Shora: Yes, you are correct that I have no intention of engaging in any kind of mental unyielding inflexibility. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for feminists. I provided evidence to support my position several times. I understand feminists do not accept that evidence, but that does not mean I cannot prove my position. As I noted before, the only difference between men’s rights activism and feminism is their age. Both movements are founded on narrow-minded, conspiratorial, “us versus them” dichotomies.
Flib: If I have been “dishonest and lying since [I] started posting in this thread”, does that include me talking about my experiences?
katz: That is an illogical argument. Of course one can prove an argument wrong (the phrase “you can’t prove a negative” is an oversimplification). However, it is impossible to prove an ideology cannot cause bad behavior because one cannot know what impact an ideology has on every person who adheres to it. Yet that is essentially the argument feminists make about feminism.
Pecunium: The word can means could, which in turn means possible. My argument is essentially that it is possible that feminism causes bad behavior. You apparently disagree, although you admit you cannot support your position.
Toysoldier: You can admit that you are wrong, because can means could, which in turn means possible, so it’s possible that you are completely misunderstanding the actual motives, drives and causes of your aunt’s abuse.
It’s possible a soothsayer told her you were going to kill her, and become a man who would destroy feminism; and she wanted to keep you from becoming a feminist to prevent it.
And, (just like Oedipus) you were destined to do it and the Fates made it so that her abuse made you hate Feminism and set out on your quest to eradicate it from the earth.
You don’t know, and I defy you to prove it didn’t happen, and it’s just as provable as your contention.
TS : the phrase “you can’t prove a negative” is an oversimplification”
No, it’s a logical principle.
To be more specific, you have engaged in a Burden of Proof fallacy.