Hello IDF

[ladder]

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

Who?

From my PoV, in the recent past, it always was lose-lose. I want to know who is deluded enough to think that she/he has won?

==========

And it's not my word against yours, My counter argument vs your presumption.


But, what kind of 'feminist' are you rather than representing 'all' you are abandoning the group of 'chicks' who love 'guys' and 'cars'. ( However small their numbers are)

Why? You probably believe in 'exclusivity' right?

 

[Rashna]

My argument was already proven by Mr. Rowdy, whereas you threw me a curveball which has no backup proof. So mad indian you must accede defeat. :bounce:

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?

 

[Mad Indian]

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?

So what if a man derives pleasure from a woman? How is it misogyny? So if a woman derives pleasure of a man, then it is misandry?

And using the two things in the same sentence does not mean they are both used for the the same purpose. Wrong on so many levels

 

[Rashna]

Let's just say the "Winner takes it all".

Who?

From my PoV, in the recent past, it always was lose-lose. I want to know who is deluded enough to think that she/he has won?

 

[Mad Indian]

My argument was already proven by Mr. Rowdy, whereas you threw me a curveball which has no backup proof. So mad indian you must accede defeat. :bounce:

I dont know which place you are from, but here on planet earth, people making the claim should provide the proof. You made the claim and you should provide proof. Your argument was bad and I just showed you why it is bad. Then you have to come up with a better argument instead of asking for this nonsensical self proclaimed win.

 

[ladder]

Let's just say the "Winner takes it all".

How is it related to what I wrote? Take your time no need to hurry.


Do you always throw around unrelated and idiotic statement?

 

[Rashna]

Misogyny is placing her next to a weed in that order of importance. A weed has no choice in his( rowdy's) usage of it, but a woman has. Fundamental difference. Now tell me he ain't a misogynist.

So what if a man derives pleasure from a woman? How is it misogyny? So if a woman derives pleasure of a man, then it is misangry?

And using the two things in the same sentence does not mean they are both used for the the same purpose. Wrong on so many levels

 

[Rashna]

See now that you are losing its coming out. You tried to join the wrong dots and failed. Is that my fault?

How is it related to what I wrote? Take your time no need to hurry.


Do you always throw around unrelated and idiotic statement?

 

[ladder]

Misogyny is placing her next to a weed in that order of importance. A weed has no choice in his( rowdy's) usage of it, but a woman has. Fundamental difference. Now tell me he ain't a misogynist.

And she choose the weed, where do you have the problem?

Weed having a choice? What kind of demented statement is that?


You are making absolutely no sense, stop abusing your keyboard.

 

[Mad Indian]

Misogyny is placing her next to a weed in that order of importance. A weed has no choice in his( rowdy's) usage of it, but a woman has. Fundamental difference. Now tell me he ain't a misogynist.

This is a text book example of Non-sequitor logic. I am sorry, I debunked this argument before with an example to boot . In purely logical reasoning, a man loving a chick and a weed still does not mean he values the chick on the same level as the weed. That is what you are implying. So your logic does not follow.

And to add -

1. You have no proof that Rowdy meant to say that Chicks and Weeds are of equal value to him or anything there of ---> Eg, I love video games and economics. Does not mean I love them equally nor does my statement say anything about how I value each other in relation to each other. So your argument that he holds chicks on the same level as the weeds does not work.

2. Even if what you said is true- Rowdy did think he loves Chicks and Weeds equally - it does not prove misogyny. He loving and getting pleasure from Chicks---> not misogyny, he loving and deriving pleasure from weeds ---> not miso"weeds" . His statement does not prove anything on his hatred towards women ,.ie misogyny

3. your arguments would hold true only if he said, he would forcefully take pleasure from women ---> That is not what he said at all. Sorry your logic fails big time

 

[ladder]

See now that you are losing its coming out. You tried to join the wrong dots and failed. Is that my fault?

Coherence is a mandatory here, you are incoherent.

As I said earlier you are just blabbering.

 

[Rashna]

You made the claim about cars and husbands didn't you. So the onus is on you to prove it. Or else i am the winner because i first observed something and then made a claim quite unlike you who did the opposite. Now go get me the proof.

I dont know which place you are from, but here on planet earth, people making the claim should provide the proof. You made the claim and you should provide proof. Your argument was bad and I just showed you why it is bad. Then you have to come up with a better argument instead of asking for this nonsensical self proclaimed win.

 

[Mad Indian]

You made the claim about cars and husbands didn't you. So the onus is on you to prove it. Or else i am the winner because i first observed something and then made a claim quite unlike you who did the opposite. Now go get me the prove.

I gave that example as a counter to show that your logic/reasoning does not follow. I dint make that claim. Good try though

 

[Rashna]

You can sound coherent only if you make some logical point. You were trying to steal someone else's thunder and you failed to provide me with a satisfactory reply about anything. Did you reply to my point wise post in blue? Kindly do so first.

Coherence is a mandatory here, you are incoherent.

As I said earlier you are just blabbering.

 

[Rashna]

Whether rowdy is a misogynist or not is another thing but the fact is that he definitely opened a can of worms here. IT is the truth that women are highly unlikely to make such comparisons or statements. In that sense it proves that rowdy has objectified a woman by equating her with weed. That some of you actually subscribe to his view-point became clear when you started making counter-arguments which according to you are quite logical but do not find any real life examples. When i asked you to provide some you started to justify his behavior by saying so what?

I gave that example as a counter to show that your logic/reasoning does not follow. I dint make that claim. Good try though

 

[Mad Indian]

Listen folks, this is why you should view feminist logic with suspicion . No matter what men do, anything can be and will be used against them by feminists. Its misogyny that men cover their women in Saudi Arabia and it is misogyny that men in Europe gawk at topless women in their beaches. Its misogyny if men are hypersexual and date and sleep around left and right, it is also misogyny if they stop dating women altogether and become bachelors or monks. Damned if you do, damned if you dont

I think I have wasted enough time for one day.

 

[Rashna]

You lost and I won! Thank you for your time.

Listen folks, this is why you should view feminist logic with suspicion . No matter what men do, anything can be and will be used against them by feminists. Its misogyny that men cover their women in Saudi Arabia and it is misogyny that men in Europe gawk at topless women in their beaches. Its misogyny if men are hypersexual and date and sleep around left and right, it is also misogyny if they stop dating women altogether and become bachelors or monks. Damned if you do, damned if you dont

I think I have wasted enough time for one day.

 

[Mad Indian]

Whether rowdy is a misogynist or not is another thing but the fact is that he definitely opened a can of worms here. IT is the truth that women are highly unlikely to make such comparisons or statements. In that sense it proves that rowdy has objectified a woman by equating her with weed. That some of you actually subscribe to his view-point became clear when you started making counter-arguments which according to you are quite logical but do not find any real life examples. When i asked you to provide some you started to justify his behavior by saying so what?

I thought that it would be a waste of time to even engage with you in the future considering all the strawmans and non sequitors you have pulled up. But this point you have brought up is actually kind of a valid talking point - Objectification of women.

My argument is - objectification of women is still not misogyny.

 

[ladder]

@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]

WoW! When did you last tried to use your brain?

Its not me but he who brought the two together

Mentioning two things 'together' should always imply they have something in common? Nice logic, is it present in 'feminism logic 101'?

It is, because he gave this as the reason for sporting the avatar he has on.

LOL, it's taking reading between the lines to the 'feministic' level.

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.

So those who are 'stoned' are not humans right? Is that what 'feminists' believe?

@Rashna

Now your are stating the real meat.


Things written in a members corner are always light banter, when he advises you to not become a 'feminist' he is not expecting you to become one. Neither is his conviction for Weed and chicks.

If you aren't a 'feminist' you simple aren't. Why try to convey otherwise?

If you want to be one we have no problem. But, try to a convincing one.

Do you believe any one really thought you to be a feminist? No none. But, what's the harm in playing along?

======
Rest I have already countered.

 

[Rashna]

First of all let me tell you talking to anyone is never a waste of time, unless of course the person has decided not to change his or her perspective on things. The point that i now need to make on a serious note is that i have absolutely no objection or take on Rowdy's stance or statement. My only objection is to his advice doled out to me based on a presumption he made about my gender. The only reason for me to take this on is, i did not judge you for your avatar why do you judge me before you even know who i am or what i stand for? If he had not made this statement i have no issue with his opinion because each person is free to have their own take on things, its a free world. But do not tell me what to speak, that right i reserve for myself.
Objectification is definitely a serious problem, and rowdy's statement is a prime e.g. of that.

I thought that it would be a waste of time to even engage with you in the future considering all the strawmans and non sequitors you have pulled up. But this point you have brought up is actually kind of a valid talking point - Objectification of women.

My argument is - objectification of women is still not misogyny.