Ask an Anti-Feminist!

[TheMessiah]

It's not that the sources aren't ''wrong'' - it's more so the fact that they can't be proven ''right'' - they link to biased opinion pieces which make assertions and put forward a specific political ideology, and then cite those sources as proof, despite the fact that they clearly can't be used as ''proof'' - they're just subjective opinion pieces, which lack academic rigor or a set of facts.

Again, what opinions aren't biased? Aren't we all biased? What is subjective and why are its sources subjective? Isn't everything subjective?

Creating a wiki called ''Rational'' (in a clear attempt to boost people's perception of the data-base they use) is pathetic - I also believe this is the same wiki which was heavily in favor of Atheism Plus, a movement which failed horribly and acted like a religious cult.

And? Some New Atheism and followers of Dawkins etc behave exactly like a religious cult but no one is protesting against Dawkins' blog. Why is A+'s case any different? Dawkins, like A+, is following his own agenda, in particular hostility towards religion.

A database shouldn't pretend to be what it isn't, this is precisely what ''Rational'' Wiki does; they write articles about Feminism and then link pro-Feminist pieces to them. That's propaganda.

Why should a piece written by a feminist be discarded? If it has reasonable arguments it should be accepted.

Thunderf00t is a commentator; all of his videos on Feminism are linked to modern, recent Feminist campaigns which have the backing of the media - he's not deceptive like ''Rational'' Wiki.

His twist of facts and lack of evidence is deceptive. Not to mention he frequently manipulates arguments, sensationalizes and ridicules the opponent, and twists facts to fit his own narrow minded narrative.

1. If the wiki is going to be reliable, it needs to cite peer-reviewed, respected and academic research; because I've looked at Rational-Wiki and seen half-assed agenda-driven blogs cited as ''evidence'' and upon questioning the editors just say ''Oh, we don't investigate claims'' etc. It's a sham of a system

2. Dawkins is just a man; there's no organised ''Dawkins followers'' - most of them are just You-Tube commenters. Most Atheism Plus nutters were in a movement, had their own goals and attempted to ostracize people who didn't toe their line. Hell, there's a thread on this forum about it, but those people were insanely irrational

3. That's the problem, the Wiki decides whether it's ''reasonable'' - so if they have a Feminist page, and the admin is a Feminist....guess what? He'll cite sources which ideologically agree with him.

There's nothing wrong with that, but I'm not going to use that as reliable

4. Any specific examples? Seems to me that the people he ridicules deserve ridicule, he doesn't debate scholars, he makes fun of the loonie side of Feminism