Hello IDF

[ladder]

Its apparent you don't see any difference between a living thing and an inanimate object.

What if 'weed' is changed to 'pet dog/cat', surely you don't consider them inanimate do you?


PS, Seriously? You wrote that?

You need to weigh in your words before writing in this forum, for one word might be enough ammo for the opponent.

 

[Rashna]

Its not me who is making all these illogical combinations. lol. It all started with Mr.Rowdy who likes chicks and weed. And mad indian also missed the point and now i think even you have. Talk about blind spot.

What if 'weed' is changed to 'pet dog/cat', surely you don't consider them inanimate do you?


PS, Seriously? You wrote that?

You need to weigh in your words before writing in this forum, for one word might be enough ammo for the opponent.

 

[ladder]

Its not me who is making all these illogical combinations. lol. It all started with Mr.Rowdy who likes chicks and weed. And mad indian also missed the point and now i think even you have. Talk about blind spot.

Tell me why the combination is weird/ illogical? ( though use of word 'illogical' is illogical on your part). What logic is violated here?

Blind spot? Maybe, hopefully your enlightening reply can address that.

 

[ladder]

Now you are well and truly caught in your own trap. This argument would never hold true. You won't find a woman making a statement like I like "dudes", and "Cars". And replacing the word "like", with "love", NEVER............

Why? Why should I take your word 'Never' to be a inviolable universal truth? Only because 'you' say so?

Not very convincing, Next...............

 

[Rashna]

What is the point of commonality between the two? That the person derives pleasure out of both. While the weed can't talk back, the chick certainly can. Then this person goes on to say i want this human being to become a weed so i can get what i want out of her but no feminism please. how can you expect a human being to behave like a weed? If this isn't illogical what is?

Tell me why the combination is weird/ illogical? ( though use of word 'illogical' is illogical on your part). What logic is violated here?

Blind spot? Maybe, hopefully your enlightening reply can address that.

 

[Rashna]

You need not. But you would find it difficult to negate it.

Why? Why should I take your word 'Never' to be a inviolable universal truth? Only because 'you' say so?

Not very convincing, Next...............

 

[ladder]

What the point of commonality between the two? That the person derives pleasure out of both. While the weed can't talk back, the chick certainly can. Then this person goes on to say i want this human being to become a weed so i can get what i want out of her but no feminism please. how can you expect a human being to behave like a weed? If this isn't illogical what is?

Why do you need commonality in the first place? That is the first fallacy in your argument.

Yes, why wouldn't he? Did he say the nature of pleasure is same for him from both?

Why do you require the weed to talk back? The human who consumes it can, isn't it enough? The 'chick' too can even if stoned.

No, you are stereotyping here, why do you think no 'chick' in the world loves 'weed'? Well is so that weed smoking girl doesn't measure up to your 'feministic' standard?

The rest are blabbering makes no sense to a person who is 'sane' and even to a person who is 'stoned'.

So, your behaviour is that of a 'cryptic misogynist', apart from a large group of males who are misogynist, a small group of women too can be misogynist who stereotype women and want them to measure up to their feminist standard.

For your reply that 'Never' will one find a girl/lady/chick who shall love a dude and a car in the same breath, is a indication that you define 'presumptuous' boundaries a precursor to stereotyping.

 

[ladder]

You need not. But you would find it difficult to negate it.

'Difficulty' is no indication of that not happening. It's dead end for only 'presumptuous' individuals.

Thus, not a good case to use the word 'NEVER'.

 

[alphacentury]

Welcome to the Forum .:welcome: More dead guys like me will show up now .

 

[Rashna]

@ladder

Why do you need commonality in the first place? That is the first fallacy in your argument.
Its not me but he who brought the two together.

Yes, why wouldn't he? Did he say the nature of pleasure is same for him from the both?
It is, because he gave this as the reason for sporting the avatar he has on.

Why do you require the weed to talk back? The human who consumes it can, isn't it enough? The 'chick' too can even if stoned.

Well the stoned part of it means he is not interested in any "human" interaction. He would rather not talk at all. I have no issues with what he wants, but he was advising me or rather warning me "No feminism". In effect he was trying to put me in a spot when i had no intention of becoming a feminist on this forum. The precursor to stereotyping came from this man and now i must step up to the plate and deliver the goods.

No, you are stereotyping here, why do you think no 'chick' in the world loves 'weed'? Well is so that weed smoking girl doesn't measure up to your 'feministic' standard?
When did i say chicks don't or cannot love weed. Please go through the entire thread to understand the background of this chat. You are just stuck on one post.

The rest are blabber makes no sense to a person who is 'sane' and even to a person who is 'stoned'.

So, your behaviour is that of a 'cryptic misogynist', Apart from a large group of males who are misogynist, a small group of women too can be misogynist who stereotype women and want them to measure up to their feminist standard.

I have no such standard and i am only pointing out how their minds are clouded by their own judgemental thinking.

For your reply that 'Never' will one find a girl/lady/chick who shall love a dude and a car in the same breath, is a indication that you define 'presumptuous' boundaries a precursor to stereotyping.

I told you it would be difficult for you to negate this. Women are simply not wired to make such statements.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Rashna]

Thanks. Hope to see you around.:thumb:

Welcome to the Forum .:welcome: More dead guys like me will show up now .

 

[Rashna]

Never is a strong word i agree but i am almost 99% sure this ain't happening.

'Difficulty' is no indication of that not happening. It's dead end for only 'presumptuous' individuals.

Thus, not a good case to use the word 'NEVER'.

 

[ladder]

Never is a strong word i agree but i am almost 99% sure this ain't happening.

99% is not good for 'Never'

When you are looking at a sample size of 50% of world population, 1% matters.

Let me give you the definition of 'Never'

never


/ˈnɛvə/


adverb

adverb: never



1.


at no time in the past or future; not ever.
"they had never been camping in their lives"


synonyms: at no time, not at any time, not ever, not once, on no occasion; literaryne'er
"his room is never tidy"



antonyms: always, forever




2.


not at all.
"he never turned up"


synonyms: not at all, certainly not, not for a moment, not under/in any circumstances, under/in no circumstances, on no account; More
informalno way, not on your life, not in a million years, not for love or money;

informalnot on your nelly

"your mother would never agree to it"



antonyms: certainly, definitely




"¢Britishinformal

Try harder lady, you are loosing.

 

[Mad Indian]

Now you are well and truly caught in your own trap. This argument would never hold true. You won't find a woman making a statement like I like "dudes", and "Cars". And replacing the word "like", with "love", NEVER............

Strawman argument/Changing the goal posts. The question/logic I put forward was not whether women would do it or not. The question/logic was that even if they do say that, it would not be considered misandric . Nice try

So ,a statement by a woman - "I love all dudes and weed" - would be considered inappropriate maybe but is not misandry

Similiarly, a statement by a man(as is the case here) - " I love all the chicks and weed" - would be considered inappropriate maybe but is not misogyny.

Again, this is the typical feminist logic I was talking about in that "Feminism is toxic" thread- men liking/loving women is misogyny- hatred of women type of logic. Always viewing everything happening to women as a logical extension of misogyny .

 

[Mad Indian]

And this happened to you after your arguments with men (at least in majority). So the first male bastion (of logical talk) has been torn down. Men make emotional arguments and that has made you pre-empt an attack by rattling off all of your supposed mis-demeanours.

I dont know what the hell you are talking about. Anyway, you should also know that I detest wasting time with arguing for argument's sake.

 

[Rashna]

Well mister, its your word against mine. And guess who is winning these days?

99% is not good for 'Never'

When you are looking at a sample size of 50% of world population, 1% matters.

Let me give you the definition of 'Never'



Try harder lady, you are loosing.

 

[Rashna]

You lost this one fair and square. Calling it a strawman argument won't work. Either get me evidence or accept you lost. I can present a number of unproven theories for argument's sake. Righto?

Strawman argument/Changing the goal posts. The question/logic I put forward was not whether women would do it or not. The question/logic was that even if they do say that, it would not be considered misandric . Nice try

So ,a statement by a woman - "I love all dudes and weed" - would be considered inappropriate maybe but is not misandry

Similiarly, a statement by a man - " I love all the chicks and weed" - would be considered inappropriate maybe but is not misogyny.

Again, this is the typical feminist logic at work - men liking/loving women is misogyny- hatred of women

 

[Rashna]

This is another reason why you must never leave mid-argument. Now you can't remember the context.

I dont know what the hell you are talking about. Anyway, you should also know that I detest wasting time with arguing for argument's sake.

 

[Mad Indian]

I agree with Rowdy.....Indian civilization doesn't believe in "GENDER WARS" Males and females are complimentary and should have mutual respect and interact with harmony. In Sanskrit, a sage once said "Yantre naryanti punjante...Ramante tatra devata" (where women are revered, Gods reside there)
DFI is a great forum to share ideas, opinions and insights. Warm welcome to the forum.

Sarcasm on //Yeah right, western culture had gender wars from start of their civilisation till now. Sure. It had nothing to do with the feminist hijacking of their politics and the resultant hysteria. Its all in their culture. Stupid westerners should learn from India on how men and women are different. They apparantly dont know it themselves.

But India is special though because we never had any genders wars. Its only western civilization you see. // Sarcasm off

 

[Mad Indian]

You lost this one fair and square. Calling it a strawman argument won't work. Either get me evidence or accept you lost. I can present a number of unproven theories for argument's sake. Righto?

What fair and square? You called someone misogynist for saying he likes chicks and weed. I just demonstrated how that does not follow with a counter argument. And now you are claiming you won?