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.
Toysoldier’s aunt could have been a secret MRM plant, operating undercover, sent back from the future to make him hate feminists. He can’t prove that’s not true, so really it’s just as likely as any of the alternative explanations! 😀
I’m still waiting for Toysolider to just come out and say his faulty conclusion already.
There should be no feminism because someone could have a messed up interpretation of it and choose to do horrible things.
Toysoldier: Second paragraph. Reading comprehension, you do not have it.
Furthermore, I never denied about your personal experiences. But keep playing the martyr game, bro. That’s all you do for “evidence” besides wild misinterpretation.
Oh is that it? I thought he wanted to ban aunts!
;D
Is Toysoldier still trying to prove that all feminists (even the male ones) are child abusers?
And by “trying to prove” I mean “repeated insisting, regardless of all proof to the contrary out in the real world?”
“Is Toysoldier still trying to prove that all feminists (even the male ones) are child abusers?”
Nah, he’s trying to say feminist doesn’t influence anyone AND it hurts people both at the same time!
I think he’s trying to prove that we can’t prove they’re not. Which in Toysoldierstan is essentially the same thing. :p
Well, crap!
I became a feminist because I heard they had chocolate AND peanutbutter.
Oh, and cats with captions…!
And, as a special bonus, we have bacon flavoured popcorn!!
Pecunium: It is highly improbable that feminism had no influence on my aunt’s behavior given the importance of feminism to her. The “you can’t prove a negative” is not exactly a logical principle. It depends on what one argues. In your case, you argue an absolute, literally that feminism never causes bad behavior. Yet you have no means of supporting that because you do not know feminism’s impact on every feminist. I have not engaged in the burden of proof fallacy, although feminists did when you claimed feminism and feminists could not cause or commit any wrong. I provided I counter argument, which I supported with examples.
xtra: I believe people have the right to hold whatever views they want, even if they are biased views like those in feminism. However, that does not mean I must agree with or support those views.
Flib: If you do not want your words to be taken at face value, learn to choose your words more carefully.
Toysoldier must be one of those last-words type people.
They’re determined to get the last word in, even if, after being soundly beaten through logic, examples, citations and general disintigration of their argument will continue to repeat the fallacies that they began with.
(Run-on sentences are my friends and rhetoric of choice)
Toysoldier: If you want to be listened to and actually matter, learn to create actual statements. AKA, don’t try and lecture me when you are an utter failure.
TS: . In your case, you argue an absolute, literally that feminism never causes bad behavior.
I do? Really?
Prove it. Show me where I have ever said such a thing.
Which is slightly narrower than the veiled accusation you are making that feminists think such a thing.
What is different between us is that you are saying, “since she was a feminist, and she abused me feminism was the cause”.
To which it has been said, that’s not proven. You can’t prove it.
But you cast it as, “feminism might have been the seed crystal for her pathology, ergo feminism might have caused it, therefore feminism causes women to abuse boys”. Then you weasel by laying an unmeetable burden of proof on anyone who might disagree with you and declare victory.
Irony: It’s What’s For Dinner.
Toysoldier:
Good news, everyone: TS thinks feminsim is good, and is not why he was abused!
a. OK, so when you said “You can’t prove a negative” elebenty billion times, you were intentionally saying something you knew wasn’t true.
b. What you really meant was “You can disprove things. Just not the thing I’m saying.”
Lies!
“Flib: If you do not want your words to be taken at face value, learn to choose your words more carefully.”
Did someone just declare Wednesday Irony Day?
People do not interpret Toy Soldier’s words the way that he says he intended – everyone else is a dolt who needs to read more closely and understand him better.
Toy Soldier does not interpret someone else’s words the way the other person intended? The other person needs to write better.
It’s all so obvious once you realize that the underlying rule is that normal rules of debate do not apply to Toy Soldier, because he’s just special that way.
I may be new to feminism but I guess mine must be broken because my sons seem to remain un-abused. Is there a refund policy or is it store credit only?
Pecunium: You stated, ” What I will say is that [her] being abusive isn’t a result of feminism, no matter what she might have told you, because there is no doctrinal theory of feminism, apart from men and women deserve to be treated as equals.” I accept your apology. Moving on, my argument is that feminism, like any ideology, can cause good or bad behavior. The criteria I use to support that position is the same criteria feminists use to support their claims that feminism only causes good behavior and that men’s activism causes bad behavior: citing the impact of an ideology on the person’s views and behavior, and the importance of that ideology in that person’s life. If that is insufficient proof, then by that standard Shora cannot claim that feminism changed her views and behavior as she did several comments ago, and feminists cannot claim that men’s activism causes misogyny. Again, I understand why feminists disagree with my position. I understand why feminists weasel out of their own logic when someone applies it to them, but that does not mean I argued your ridiculous straw man. Likewise, just because you cannot prove an absolute negative does mean I cannot prove my argument. Remember, feminists decided on their own to argue that feminism never causes bad behavior. I neither told you do that or tricked you into it. If you cannot prove your own argument, you should amend or retract it rather than throwing a tantrum and resorting to straw men.
Hershele Ostropoler: I never stated I think feminism is good or that it played no part in my experiences. Nice try, though.
katz: No, because a) an oversimplification does not mean something is not true, and b) the logic correctly applies to the argument feminists made. What part of “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” do you not understand?
CassandraSays: How unfortunate that you do not understand irony despite engaging in it so often. It would only be ironic if my exact words were what feminists claimed, which they are not. Feminists assumed I meant something other than what I wrote. In contrast, Flib’s exact words were “You’ve been dishonest and lying since you started posting in this thread!” Since my first comment only related my experience, Flib implies that I lied about my experiences.
Just need to get that off my chest: every time this thread pops up again in the “recent comments posted” list, it reminds me of the Monty Python’s “Cake or Death?” sketch.
Oops. Make that Eddie Izzard.
It’s a curious thing… I’ve been reading jaketk/Toysoldier’s writing for years (IIRC I first encountered him at Hugo Schwyzer’s blog around 2004 or so), and after all this time I have very little sense of who he is.
Toysoldier: http://manboobz.com/2011/09/22/feminism-or-death/comment-page-2/#comment-63312
I can make the argument you do not know the difference between the fine line of stupid and clever. Therefore you are lying by implying that you do. Nice try, but I can play the semantic games just as well as you do.