So did Atheism + bite the dust?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Also, simply because something is sourced or supported with a link to a conservative website, that doesn't mean that the support is faulty. Although you deny that your discussion was ideological in nature, you yourself have relied upon ideological standing in listening to or rejecting what he has posted.

No I rely on where the evidence points to. The American Enterprise Institute is neo-conservative leaning so obviously they are not a credible source, particularly because they deny everything that don't fits their ideology. Some of their positions like climate change skepticism, their position on neo-liberalism and deregulated market and so on make them a source with little credibility, particularly because evidence in economics points to an overly deregulated market being a synonym with poverty, inequalities and misery. So yeah Parkers, why the hell should I trust that source?

I'd just like to point out that, once again, instead of answering the criticism, you're attacking the source.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. I don't care what they say about anything else, in the context of this thread. I care about what they say on this subject, and if you think they're wrong, I want to know why you think they're wrong, not why they're unworthy of credibility. The first task you need to accomplish yourself; the second task, I will do on my own.

Also, institutions like the AEI question the frequency of rape and lean on the side that says "women are crying" rape, which includes minimizing, focusing on false accusations and claiming that rape frequency is not that big even when evidence points out. this link shows how conservatives in particular (includes position of the AEI) try to twist rape victims and the dangers of sex assault by minimizing and doing some questionable studies.

Simply because they're conservative, does that mean that they must share that position? I will dig through that link, but honestly, you appear to have some baggage attached to "conservative" that isn't necessarily pertinent. There are plenty of conservatives who consider rape a crime heinous enough to merit the death penalty. There are plenty of liberals who think that rapists shouldn't be serving long terms. Introducing those terms of ideology which you yourself have in this thread denounced is disingenuous. If it's not about ideology, quit using ideology as a reason to dismiss countervailing views, and answer the criticism directly.

Otherwise, you look like you're trying to eat your cake and have it, too.

Correct, I think some rad-fems bring terrible claims and I disapprove it, but thinking it is common in feminism to think men should be castrated is not a wise decision.

Which is exactly why I'm skeptical of that link. Something so extreme, so rare, should obviously bear a larger chance of being a plant.

On the other hand what we are discussing right now is not radical feminism only but:
- If this movement the OP talks about known as atheism+ really highjacked the rest of the community (atheist), something I find unreasonable to think

They clearly haven't.

- If MRA's are helping men, something I disagree with

They have some valid points, and some bullshit to go along with them.

- By the way, I didn't just deny the source, I did a constructive reply to the video about gaming and sexism where I pointed out how to take a critical sociological approach to media that helps us see how it affects our perceptions. I also said the book from 2nd wave feminist Betty Friedan named The Feminine Mystique is very good at demonstrating how the media affects our perception of everything and, in particular, shapes how women are viewed and treated in society.

My particular critique was addressing your propensity for saying that "that source is conservative, stop using it". I'm not saying that is the only thing you've written. I'm saying that that practice you've shown is fallacious -- to wit, it's an ad homeneim.

Some of your replies have indeed been pretty substantial, and I'm enjoying reading this back-and-forth between you two. It's making me think, and that is a gift.

- TheMessiah has been continuously posting links - He started to the OP and then he got offended that someone refuses throwing the word feminazi commonly without much purpose and started constantly providing links, videos and websites to prove his claims.

Yeah, I figured that out for myself, thanks.

- By the way, my problem with the word feminazi is that while it may be ok to use as an accusation, it gets thrown excessively to silence women who complain about legitimate problems - When a man calls her a feminazi people will automatically think less of her, and when women protest for important issues they are seen as in need to be put in their place.

As I've posted upthread already, I think that perjorative is useless, and obstructs communication.

Parkers - I'll tell you something, I actually have the right to deny sources if I don't find them credible, as long as I state what I deem as acceptable evidence.

Of course, no one can force you to listen to anyone you don't want to hear.

If my standards are reasonable, I don't see the problem - I asked for an impartial source, and obviously quoting conservative institutions affiliated with Bush administration; quoting Men's rights activists and quoting the first websites that show up if you type "Feminazi quotes" are not acceptable evidence - it's confirmation bias.

"If" your standards are "reasonable".

I think there's plenty of irrationailty on both sides of this discussion, myself.