Hey everyone - I'm sorry I haven't been joining this discussion. My shop in SE Missouri finally sold; I've been scrambling for the last few days to make all the arrangements necessary to move our equipment out ASAP and have been trying to secure a place to which to move it in the KCMO area. I'm going to be intermittently here, and only briefly, until things settle back down in my new location.

I'm a little bit amazed this has gone on for so long, talking with a person who calls books like Against Our Will to be "propaganda" and not worth reading, when that person refuses to even acknowledge the books that spell out in extensive detail the kinds of things the OP keeps implying are in our imaginations, or are just feelings-based, etc.

How many times can one spell it out, that "the overwhelming majority are not like you describe" is not the NTS fallacy? Or that refusing to acknowledge basic definitions means that two sides can't really communicate, thereafter?

Kudos to Evie and Losty, who argued quite well, until I had to skip forward nearly 25 pages for time's sake. Kudos to Thump for making well-reasoned and decent counter-arguments, rather than being a jerk, as well. Love ya, Thump!

I'll return as soon as I am able to settle down for more than a few minutes. It will likely be in a week or so. Please let anyone know, if y'all see someone saying "where's Rocket?"

The NTS fallacy may be the most commonly misunderstood fallacy I know. And I myself used to misunderstand it too.

Epic post TRS.

My contribution to the drama (skip to 10:24 if the video doesn't automatically do it)

(November 19, 2015 at 12:34 am)Evie Wrote:

(November 19, 2015 at 12:28 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: The fact is that the Catholic Church put together the original definition of "Christian". By your standard given above it follows that anyone eh deviates from that standard -- which certainly would include Protestants -- are not true Christians.

Nah, defintions can change. The dicionary today is where things are defined today not who originally defined it.

Earlier in this discussion you implied that the original definition is the definitive one -- I have added the emphasis:

(November 18, 2015 at 6:37 pm)Evie Wrote: Also I would argue that seen as the original feminist movement was for equal rights of women and wasn't anti-men at all, the feminists who think men should all be castrated are not only being bigoted and giving real feminists a bad name, but they're completely distorting the actual definition of feminism.

You're not being consistent; now you're saying that the current definition in the dictionary is what rules the matter.

I don't see any inherent contradiction between the dictionary definition of feminism and a woman who thinks men should be castrated. A feminist can both work towards "political, social, and economic equality to men" and be a man-hater. With that being the case, I find your distinction to be ad hoc, and I stand by my assessment of you committing NTS, per your own definition.

(November 19, 2015 at 12:34 am)Evie Wrote: I agree. The groups don't define it at all, the dictionary does.

No, it doesn't. People define words.

(November 19, 2015 at 12:34 am)Evie Wrote: Yes, ultimately that is where the definitions come from and definitions change overtime... but a group still doesn't define the definition used. 

And yet as shown above, you're defining man-haters as not feminist based precisely upon the original sentiments of the original feminists. You cannot eat your cake and have it, too.

(November 19, 2015 at 12:34 am)Evie Wrote: Indeed, but unless the definition of feminism that involves essentially being pro-women's rights and equality for both sexes ever ends up being required to be dropped from the dictionary altogether, then any other definition used is irrelevant to that definition. To conflate any other definition with that definition is to commit the equivocation fallacy.

Yet you've done exactly that in this discussion.

(November 19, 2015 at 12:34 am)Evie Wrote: I believe that. I know you're a very reasonable person I wouldn't think that of you

I appreciate the kind words and the civil discussion. Also, in doing some background reading for this reply, I've learnt a bit. Thanks for the impetus.

(November 19, 2015 at 2:32 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: My contribution to the drama (skip to 10:24 if the video doesn't automatically do it)

https://youtu.be/s2H_qYV-GkM?t=10m24s

Please please I beg you not to use the video tags T_T

https://youtu.be/s2H_qYV-GkM?t=10m24s

(November 19, 2015 at 2:50 pm)Losty Wrote: Please please I beg you not to use the video tags T_T

https://youtu.be/s2H_qYV-GkM?t=10m24s

Oh, sorry, I didn't know there's an issue with them.

It's all good Kevin

Just trying to spread the word. You can post a video by just pasting the link directly into your post and then everyone can see it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWxAljFlb-c

(December 3, 2015 at 9:45 am)DespondentFishdeathMasochismo Wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWxAljFlb-c

I don't how much you disagree with someone you kinda help their point when you do things like
1. Make bomb threats at their events
2. Vandalize their Wikipedia page
3. Send rape threats
4. Post their private information online
5. Stalk them in real life as well online

(December 3, 2015 at 10:28 am)BrokenQuill92 Wrote:

(December 3, 2015 at 9:45 am)DespondentFishdeathMasochismo Wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWxAljFlb-c

I don't how much you disagree with someone you kinda help their point when you do things like
1. Make bomb threats at their events
2. Vandalize their Wikipedia page
3. Send rape threats
4. Post their private information online
5. Stalk them in real life as well online

You can throw your argument out the window, because you just generalized everyone who disagrees with feminism.