Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
RE: Why so many "anti-feminists" in the atheist community?
December 4, 2015 at 2:39 am (This post was last modified: December 4, 2015 at 2:43 am by Edwardo Piet.)
(December 4, 2015 at 2:20 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: I'm absolutely not going to get into whether "being pro-gender-equality" is an adequate definition of the word or the movement of feminism. Feminism, like it or not, is a broadly interpreted word both within and without the movement itself, so yes, insisting on "your" definition as the "true" one is a "No True Scotsman" fallacy because that's what that fallacy literally is.
@ Redbeard That's ridiculous. You're using an incorrect oversimplifed and bastardized version of the NTS fallacy to consider my correction of that bastardization a commiting of the fallacy itself? K....
Okay so if I were to say "No true definition of atheism includes eating two donuts every day as well as not believing in Gods". That's the NTS fallacy? Even though that's tautologically correct as atheism has nothing to do with fucking donuts?
I'm waiting for you to actually address the Wikipedia article and my analogy that you are basically denying the logical validity of tautologies.
According to you if I were to say "no true way of using mathmatetics allows 2+2 to = anything other than 4" that would be a fallacy despite it being FALSE by definition simply because I prefaced it with "No true".
"No true definition of atheism is anything more than not believing in gods" is not the NTS fallacy... it's a tautology providing that we agree with the definition. Do you disagree with that definition of Atheism? If you don't, fine, define it a weird way but whatever way you define it, it's the changing the definition half way with the addition of the word "true" to become "no true X" after before it just being "no X" that makes it a fallacy.
I even underlined and bolded the parts in the Wikipedia article that made it clear that the NTS fallacy requires a modifying of previous definition and an Ad Hoc attempt to dodge the matter.
Please read the actual definition of the NTS fallacy.................. don't just go by the common misunderstanding that comes about by many people's lazy reading, they fail to comprehnend the definition so they merely settle for "Oh the fallacy is simply prefacing a definition with No true"" NO IT'S NOT. That's not the fallacy. It's a specific type of Ad Hoc fallacy. Read what the fallacy actually is, and if you're uncomfortable with Wikipedia, go to Fallacy Files or another fallacy site. Don't just use your own incorrect batardized deifntiion to try and rebut the correct defintion.
RE: Why so many "anti-feminists" in the atheist community?
December 4, 2015 at 3:19 am
(December 4, 2015 at 2:39 am)Evie Wrote:
(December 4, 2015 at 2:20 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: I'm absolutely not going to get into whether "being pro-gender-equality" is an adequate definition of the word or the movement of feminism. Feminism, like it or not, is a broadly interpreted word both within and without the movement itself, so yes, insisting on "your" definition as the "true" one is a "No True Scotsman" fallacy because that's what that fallacy literally is.
@ Redbeard That's ridiculous. You're using an incorrect oversimplifed and bastardized version of the NTS fallacy to consider my correction of that bastardization a commiting of the fallacy itself? K....
Okay so if I were to say "No true definition of atheism includes eating two donuts every day as well as not believing in Gods". That's the NTS fallacy? Even though that's tautologically correct as atheism has nothing to do with fucking donuts?
I'm waiting for you to actually address the Wikipedia article and my analogy that you are basically denying the logical validity of tautologies.
According to you if I were to say "no true way of using mathmatetics allows 2+2 to = anything other than 4" that would be a fallacy despite it being FALSE by definition simply because I prefaced it with "No true".
"No true definition of atheism is anything more than not believing in gods" is not the NTS fallacy... it's a tautology providing that we agree with the definition.
I even underlined and bolded the parts in the Wikipedia article that made it clear that the NTS fallacy requires a modifying of previous definition and an Ad Hoc attempt to dodge the matter.
Please read the actual definition of the NTS fallacy.................. don't just go by the common misunderstanding that comes about by many people's lazy reading, they fail to comprehnend the definition so they merely settle for "Oh the fallacy is simply prefacing a definition with No true" NO IT'S NOT. That's not the fallacy. It's a specific type of Ad Hoc fallacy. Read what the fallacy actually is, and if you're uncomfortable with wikipedia, go to Fallacy Files or another fallacy site. Don't just use your own incorrect batardized deifntiion to try and rebut the correct defintion.
I'm not just presuming you're using NTS because your statement could be worded to start with "No True Feminist..."
The opening line of the Wikipedia article for "feminism" includes the following quote:
Quote:Feminism is a range of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social .
Two things of note.
First, while feminism is somewhat unified in that it generally advocates women's rights in all its various forms, you'll note that the word actually describes a range...again, that's a range of movements and ideologies. That means that while they all may have some things in common, there is no one movement or group that officially describes or defines feminism. The word is widely defined, interpreted, and practiced by different movements of people, and yet you insist that things beyond the most basic, core definition aren't "true feminists." I could but scoop my wizardly hand through Twitter and find a roster of people who think your definition is too vague, too weak, and not anti-man enough.
Second, feminism is inseparable from women's issues. Advocating for gender equality in the form of fighting for men's equal rights, for a HYPOTHETICAL example, is not feminism even though it promotes gender equality. Feminism is not simply the promotion of gender equality, but the promotion of gender equality for women. Even if it isn't anti-man, it is decidedly and definitively pro-woman. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but attempting to define feminism as simply "being for gender-equality" is incomplete, incorrect, and perhaps even dishonest. Being "for gender equality" and being "for women's rights," while implicitly the same thing, are not technically the same thing and so should be described by two different words (which they are). The whole "No, really, you're a feminist," thing is a childish attempt at ally-mongering, and it's fucking annoying.
When people label themselves as gender egalitarians, and feminists come back with "No, you're just a feminist who's afraid to use the word 'feminist' or doesn't understand what it means," that is monumentally frustrating to people who favor gender equality but think the word "feminist" is culturally inseparable from radical feminism, and it also bolsters those people's negative perceptions of feminists.
Furthermore, you keep using atheism as an example, but it's not a great one because there are also many, many types of atheists who believe radically different things and are still "true atheists." Someone who simply disbelieves gods is a true atheist. Someone who thinks there are definitely no gods is a true atheist. Somebody who doesn't believe in gods but does believe in an afterlife is a true atheist. There is no criteria for what a "true atheist" is, save not believing in gods. If I were to claim any of those people aren't "true atheists" just because their beliefs concerning the supernatural go beyond the fact that they don't believe in gods, it would be the same thing you're doing when you claim that anything beyond the strictest definition of feminism isn't feminism. It is and it can be because feminism applies to a broad range of people and movements with only one general thing in common. That's why it's an NTS to exclude radicals from "true feminism." If they're for women's rights, they ARE feminists, just as the Westboro Baptist Church are true Christians and ISIS are true Muslims.
Verbatim from the mouth of Jesus (retranslated from a retranslation of a copy of a copy):
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you too will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. How can you see your brother's head up his ass when your own vision is darkened by your head being even further up your ass? How can you say to your brother, 'Get your head out of your ass,' when all the time your head is up your own ass? You hypocrite! First take your head out of your own ass, and then you will see clearly who has his head up his ass and who doesn't." Matthew 7:1-5 (also Luke 6: 41-42)
RE: Why so many "anti-feminists" in the atheist community?
December 4, 2015 at 3:45 am
Fair enough.
Anyway, my point was to answer the OP's question about why so many atheists on Youtube seem to be anti-feminists, and the reason (as far as I can tell) is that feminism (or at least Youtube feminism) is over-run with people who peddle sensationalism rather than reason, among other offenses, and atheists (especially skeptical ones) tend to be set off by that kind of thing.
Verbatim from the mouth of Jesus (retranslated from a retranslation of a copy of a copy):
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you too will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. How can you see your brother's head up his ass when your own vision is darkened by your head being even further up your ass? How can you say to your brother, 'Get your head out of your ass,' when all the time your head is up your own ass? You hypocrite! First take your head out of your own ass, and then you will see clearly who has his head up his ass and who doesn't." Matthew 7:1-5 (also Luke 6: 41-42)
RE: Why so many "anti-feminists" in the atheist community?
December 4, 2015 at 4:37 am (This post was last modified: December 4, 2015 at 4:50 am by Edwardo Piet.)
Redbeard the Pink Wrote:I'm not just presuming you're using NTS because your statement could be worded to start with "No True Feminist..."
Well please show me where I'm comitting the NTS fallacy? Where have I made an Ad hoc attempt to go from "no Feminist" to "No true feminist"?
Quote:First, while feminism is somewhat unified in that it generally advocates women's rights in all its various forms, you'll note that the word actually describes a range...again, that's a range of movements and ideologies. That means that while they all may have some things in common, there is no one movement or group that officially describes or defines feminism. The word is widely defined, interpreted, and practiced by different movements of people, and yet you insist that things beyond the most basic, core definition aren't "true feminists."
I agree that the basic dictionary defintion is not the only definition of Feminism. But let us not commit the equivocation fallacy and go from one definition to another. When we generally speak of feminism are we talking about pro-rights for women or are we speaking of a bastardized defintion that suggests feminism has something to do with anti-men simply because the word has become associtated with feminist groups who are also anti-men in adition to being pro-womens rights?
Which definition are we talking about? Let us not conflate any of them. Let us not equivocate.
I never suggested that any feminists who aren't merely pro-womens rights aren't feminists. I never said that. I'm prepared to paraphrase myself here right now but if I really have to go back and quote verbatium to show you what I really said I will.
What I did say was that once we actually agree on a definition of feminism, i.e., "feminism" to mean pro-women's rights, then any feminist groups - of that definition - that were also anti-men, the anti-men part would have nothing to do with their feminism because we have already agreed that "feminism" is defined to mean simply pro-women's rights and has nothing to do with being anti-men at all. We have to agree on a definition first otherwise we are just equivocating and conflating definitions which is completely fallacious. It is the Equivocation Fallacy.
At no point did I say that any feminists were "Not true feminists", and if you're talking about different definitions being true or false, then you're talking about different definitions. You're equivocating. I was already talking about the definition of "feminism" to mean pro-women's rights. To switch the different definitions of "feminism" is equivocation, I was consistent with the one I was using. You are completely confusing "feminists" and "feminism". Feminists do not represent any specific definition of feminism that we have agreed upon. And which one have you agreed upon? You haven';t. You equivocating between any definition you wish.
Sure,. you can say it's all too messy to define. But then you're talking about feminists and not feminism because you consider "feminism" to be too messy to define. So be clear on that then. You're talking about feminists and feminist groups, not feminism. Which is different. Just as talking about atheists and atheist groups is, of course, very different to talking about atheism.
Quote: I could but scoop my wizardly hand through Twitter and find a roster of people who think your definition is too vague, too weak, and not anti-man enough.
Well then we're talking about a different defintition of feminism. Once we agree on that definition then any feminists who aren't anti-men don't fall into that definition of feminism. We are not playing the NTS fallacy with different defintiions of feminism, we're just talking about different defintiions of feminism. The NTS fallacy would be to suggest that "no feminists are X" and then when an example is shown "actually, some feminists are X" - AFTER we'd already agreed on what definition of feminism we were talking about otherwise we could easily be equivocating two different definitions - we commit the NTS fallacy by saying "Oh, but no TRUE feminists are X" and then we have to talk about what exactly is different between "femnists" and "true feminists" and the answer should be nothing and that's why it's a fallacy and a dodge. It's like the different betweeen 2+2 is 4 and 2+2 truly is 4. None.
Quote:Second, feminism is inseparable from women's issues. Advocating for gender equality in the form of fighting for men's equal rights, for a HYPOTHETICAL example, is not feminism even though it promotes gender equality. Feminism is not simply the promotion of gender equality, but the promotion of gender equality for women.
You argued against this "feminism is merely egalitarianianism" thing but I never said it was, I responded to other points I disagreed with.
As I did actually say however, once we agree on a definition of "feminism", for example - feminism=pro womens rights... then it would be true to say that whilst not all feminists are egalitarians, all egalitarians are feminists (because if feminism is defined as pro women's rights then since egalitarianism means equal rights for all that would include women's rights, but not all feminists are egalitarians because some may be merely pro women's rights but not for the equal rights of other groups, men being merely one example ( this argument works in the same form of "all dogs are animals but not all animals are dogs")).
Quote:Even if it isn't anti-man, it is decidedly and definitively pro-woman.
Absolutely. Which means it is neutral on the matter of men, which is entirely my whole point. You've demonstrated my point. That is, you have done whilst we are using the definition of feminism to mean "pro-women's rights", but as soon as you then start talking about another definition, you have to recognize that is what you are doing otherwise you are committing the equivocation fallacy by conflating different definitions and interpretations within the same argumentation.
Quote:There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but attempting to define feminism as simply "being for gender-equality" is incomplete, incorrect, and perhaps even dishonest.
Funny thing is, I never defined it that way. See above.
Quote: Being "for gender equality" and being "for women's rights," while implicitly the same thing, are not technically the same thing and so should be described by two different words (which they are). The whole "No, really, you're a feminist," thing is a childish attempt at ally-mongering, and it's fucking annoying.
And a complete misrepresentation of what I posted. Which is fucking annoying.
Quote:Furthermore, you keep using atheism as an example, but it's not a great one because there are also many, many types of atheists who believe radically different things and are still "true atheists."
Atheists and atheism is different. Yes they all believe different things but atheism is still always the non-belief in gods.
Yes, atheists who believe radically different things are still true atheists............ but not if they believe in god(s). Just as once we already agree on a definition of feminism, i.e. pro-women's rights... then whilst I completely agree that all feminists believe different things and some are even anti-men - one thing it would be true to say then (once we have agreed that "feminism" is defined as merely "pro women's rights") is that one thing feminists can't be is NOT pro-women's rights. They have to be pro-women's rights. It would make no sense to say I was commited the NTS fallacy by saying "No true feminists are not pro-women's rights. Because they all have to be pro-women's rights by definition". That's not a fallacy, that's a tautology and logic based on the definition of feminism being defined as "pro women's rights.".
So agree on a deifnition, and then don't conflate them and equivocate them.
I understand that many feminist groups define "feminism" differently but then realize that we are talking about different things. To not realize this, is the equivocation fallacy at work. It's like not realizing the difference between "light" as in "not heavy" and "light" as in "not dark". It's like talking about a group of people saying that "light" means "not heavy" and another group saying that "light" means "Not dark" and saying neither is right. It's not about neither is right... they're different fucking things altogether! A definition of "feminism" that includes anything about being anti-men is a different thing altogether, a whole different kettle of fish to the feminism that is about pro-rights for women.
Get it?
Someone who simply disbelieves gods is a true atheist.
But now realize - it's not the NTS fallacy to say "no true atheists believe in gods." Now come on now, say it with me, sing it with me if you like "No true atheists believe in gods!" this is not the NTS fallacy!
So once we then, are talking about a particular definition of feminism, i.e. "Pro women's rights" then it is not the NTS fallacy to say - or sing - "no true feminists [by that definition] are anything more than pro-women's rights!".
Quote:Someone who thinks there are definitely no gods is a true atheist.
And someone who doesn't think that the non-existence of gods is definite is not a true atheist? Sure, if you define "true atheist" as strong atheist. But really "true atheist" should merely be defined as the same as "atheist" which also includes weak atheists... and... if you are defining "true atheist" and "atheist" separately (as if "2+2 is 4" and "2+2 is truly 4" mean different things when they don't) then you ARE committing the NTS fallacy implicitly.
RE: Why so many "anti-feminists" in the atheist community?
December 4, 2015 at 4:52 am (This post was last modified: December 4, 2015 at 4:53 am by Redbeard The Pink.)
(December 4, 2015 at 4:37 am)Evie Wrote:
Redbeard the Pink Wrote:I'm not just presuming you're using NTS because your statement could be worded to start with "No True Feminist..."
Well please show me where I'm comitting the NTS fallacy? Where have I made an Ad hoc attempt to go from "no Feminist" to "No true feminist"?
Quote:First, while feminism is somewhat unified in that it generally advocates women's rights in all its various forms, you'll note that the word actually describes a range...again, that's a range of movements and ideologies. That means that while they all may have some things in common, there is no one movement or group that officially describes or defines feminism. The word is widely defined, interpreted, and practiced by different movements of people, and yet you insist that things beyond the most basic, core definition aren't "true feminists."
I agree that the basic dictionary defintion is not the only definition of Feminism. But let us not commit the equivocation fallacy and go from one definition to another. When we generally speak of feminism are we talking about pro-rights for women or are we speaking of a bastardized defintion that suggests feminism has something to do with anti-men simply because the word has become associtated with feminist groups who are also anti-men in adition to being pro-womens rights?
Which definition are we talking about? Let us not conflate any of them. Let us not equivocate.
I never suggested that any feminists who aren't merely pro-womens rights aren't feminists. I never said that. I'm prepared to paraphrase myself here right now but if I really have to go back and quote verbatium to show you what I really said I will.
What I did say was that once we actually agree on a definition of feminism, i.e., "feminism" to mean pro-women's rights, then any feminist groups - of that definition - that were also anti-men, the anti-men part would have nothing to do with their feminism because we have already agreed that "feminism" is defined to mean simply pro-women's rights and has nothing to do with being anti-men at all. We have to agree on a definition first otherwise we are just equivocating and conflating definitions which is completely fallacious. It is the Equivocation Fallacy.
At no point did I say that any feminists were "Not true feminists", and if you're talking about different definitions being true or false, then you're talking about different definitions. You're equivocating. I was already talking about the definition of "feminism" to mean pro-women's rights. To switch the different definitions of "feminism" is equivocation, I was consistent with the one I was using. You are completely confusing "feminists" and "feminism". Feminists do not represent any specific definition of feminism that we have agreed upon. And which one have you agreed upon? You haven';t. You equivocating between any definition you wish.
Sure,. you can say it's all too messy to define. But then you're talking about feminists and not feminism because you consider "feminism" to be too messy to define. So be clear on that then. You're talking about feminists and feminist groups, not feminism. Which is different. Just as talking about atheists and atheist groups is, of course, very different to talking about atheism.
Quote: I could but scoop my wizardly hand through Twitter and find a roster of people who think your definition is too vague, too weak, and not anti-man enough.
Well then we're talking about a different defintition of feminism. Once we agree on that definition then any feminists who aren't anti-men don't fall into that definition of feminism. We are not playing the NTS fallacy with different defintiions of feminism, we're just talking about different defintiions of feminism. The NTS fallacy would be to suggest that "no feminists are X" and then when an example is shown "actually, some feminists are X" - AFTER we'd already agreed on what definition of feminism we were talking about otherwise we could easily be equivocating two different definitions - we commit the NTS fallacy by saying "Oh, but no TRUE feminists are X" and then we have to talk about what exactly is different between "femnists" and "true feminists" and the answer should be nothing and that's why it's a fallacy and a dodge. It's like the different betweeen 2+2 is 4 and 2+2 truly is 4. None.
Quote:Second, feminism is inseparable from women's issues. Advocating for gender equality in the form of fighting for men's equal rights, for a HYPOTHETICAL example, is not feminism even though it promotes gender equality. Feminism is not simply the promotion of gender equality, but the promotion of gender equality for women.
You argued against this "feminism is merely egalitarianianism" thing but I never said it was, I responded to other points I disagreed with.
As I did actually say however, once we agree on a definition of "feminism", for example - feminism=pro womens rights... then it would be true to say that whilst not all feminists are egalitarians, all egalitarians are feminists (because if feminism is defined as pro women's rights then since egalitarianism means equal rights for all that would include women's rights, but not all feminists are egalitarians because some may be merely pro women's rights but not for the equal rights of other groups, men being merely one example ( this argument works in the same form of "all dogs are animals but not all animals are dogs")).
Quote:Even if it isn't anti-man, it is decidedly and definitively pro-woman.
Absolutely. Which means it is neutral on the matter of men, which is entirely my whole point. You've demonstrated my point. That is, you have done whilst we are using the definition of feminism to mean "pro-women's rights", but as soon as you then start talking about another definition, you have to recognize that is what you are doing otherwise you are committing the equivocation fallacy by conflating different definitions and interpretations within the same argumentation.
Quote:There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but attempting to define feminism as simply "being for gender-equality" is incomplete, incorrect, and perhaps even dishonest.
Funny thing is, I never defined it that way. See above.
Quote: Being "for gender equality" and being "for women's rights," while implicitly the same thing, are not technically the same thing and so should be described by two different words (which they are). The whole "No, really, you're a feminist," thing is a childish attempt at ally-mongering, and it's fucking annoying.
And a complete misrepresentation of what I posted. Which is fucking annoying.
When people label themselves as gender egalitarians, and feminists come back with "No, you're just a feminist who's afraid to use the word 'feminist' or doesn't understand what it means," that is monumentally frustrating to people who favor gender equality but think the word "feminist" is culturally inseparable from radical feminism, and it also bolsters those people's negative perceptions of feminists.
Quote:Furthermore, you keep using atheism as an example, but it's not a great one because there are also many, many types of atheists who believe radically different things and are still "true atheists."
Atheists and atheism is different. Yes they all believe different things but atheism is still always the non-belief in gods.
Yes, atheists who believe radically different things are still true atheists............ but not if they believe in god(s). Just as once we already agree on a definition of feminism, i.e. pro-women's rights... then whilst I completely agree that all feminists believe different things and some are even anti-men - one thing it would be true to say then (once we have agreed that "feminism" is defined as merely "pro women's rights") is that one thing feminists can't be is NOT pro-women's rights. They have to be pro-women's rights. It would make no sense to say I was commited the NTS fallacy by saying "No true feminists are not pro-women's rights. Because they all have to be pro-women's rights by definition". That's not a fallacy, that's a tautology and logic based on the definition of feminism being defined as "pro women's rights.".
So agree on a deifnition, and then don't conflate them and equivocate them.
I understand that many feminist groups define "feminism" different buy then realize that we are talking about different things. To not realize this, is the equivocation fallacy at work. It's like not realizing the difference between "light" as in "not heavy" and "light" as in "not dark". It's like talking about a group of people saying that "light" means "not heavy" and another group saying that "light" means "Not dark" and saying neither is right. It's not about neither is right... they're different fucking things altogether! A definition of "feminism" that includes anything about being anti-men is a different thing altogether, a whole different kettle of fish to the feminism that is about pro-rights for women.
Get it?
Someone who simply disbelieves gods is a true atheist.
YES. But now realize - it's not the NTS fallacy to say "no true atheists believe in gods." Now come on now, say it with me, sing it with me if you like "No true atheists believe in gods!" this is not the NTS fallacy!
So once we then, are talking about a particular definition of feminism, i.e. "Pro women's rights" then it is not the NTS fallacy to say - or sing - "no true feminists [by that definition] are anything more than pro-women's rights!".
Quote:Someone who thinks there are definitely no gods is a true atheist.
And someone who doesn't is not a true atheist? Sure, if you define "true atheist" as strong atheist. But really "true atheist" should merely be defined as the same as "atheist" which also includes weak atheists... and... if you are defining "true atheist" and "atheist" separately (as if 2+2 is 4 and 2+2 is truly mean different things when they don't) then you ARE committing the NTS fallacy implicitly.
How.
Ironic.
Ok, this is going nowhere, and this entire discussion has been beside the original point I was making, which you have obviously missed (even though you're kind of an example of it...go figure). Refer to my next most recent post for a recap. Good luck with the reading part.
Really, I'm starting to think that Youtubers pick on internet feminists because they're easy marks for ridicule. Between the easily-ignited defensiveness and the over-blown emotional responses, it's easy to see why they get singled out by trolls and talking heads.
Verbatim from the mouth of Jesus (retranslated from a retranslation of a copy of a copy):
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you too will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. How can you see your brother's head up his ass when your own vision is darkened by your head being even further up your ass? How can you say to your brother, 'Get your head out of your ass,' when all the time your head is up your own ass? You hypocrite! First take your head out of your own ass, and then you will see clearly who has his head up his ass and who doesn't." Matthew 7:1-5 (also Luke 6: 41-42)
RE: Why so many "anti-feminists" in the atheist community?
December 4, 2015 at 5:09 am (This post was last modified: December 4, 2015 at 5:33 am by Edwardo Piet.)
Ok if we're going to do summaries and you're going to keep not addressing many of my points, I'll do a summary.
1. Regardless of how "feminism" is defined, different definitions are different definitions and to speak of them as if they are not is to equivocate.
2. Definitions aren't so hazy once you agree which definition you are talking of first.
3. One group of feminists using a completely different definition of "feminism" to another, says nothing about the other, to think otherwise, once again, is to commit the Equivocation fallacy.
4. It is not the NTS fallacy to say "no true X are Y" if it the definition agreed upon logically entails that "no true X are y". I.e. If atheists are defined as people who don't believe in gods, then to say "no true atheists believe in gods", is not the NTS fallacy. Likewise - once the definition is agreed upon - if feminists are defined as people who believe in fighting for women's rights, then it is not the NTS fallacy to say "No true feminists don't believe in fighting for women's rights."
5. If you want to understand the NTS fallacy and you're not happy with Wikipedia's definition, then check Fallacy Files or another website dedicated to logical fallacies. To suggest that any of those versions of the NTS fallacy are not exactly true because that itself would be committing the NTS fallacy while using your own non-defined and oversimplified version to do so, is hilariously fallacious in itself.
By the way Redbeard, I'm not defensive just frustrated that I can't explain the NTS fallacy and the equivocation fallacy to you because I'm sure you're perfeclty intelligent enough to comprehend them and yet you accuse me of the NTS when I haven't commited it and fail to spot your own committing of the equivocation fallacy. That is what is frustrating me. Because I have respect for you and I expect better from your logic skills when it comes to fallacies. That's all that is frustrating me.
Oh, so please stop strawmanning me too: I explained more than once that whilst all egalitarians are feminists (once a definition of "feminism" is agreed upon) not all feminists are egalitarians. I didn't commit the NTS fallacy but you strawmanned me by suggesting I was saying that all feminists had to merely be egalitarian. I didn't say that. And the whole problem with this confusion of different definitions of feminism is the equivocation fallacy. The fallacy I spot easiest.
RE: Why so many "anti-feminists" in the atheist community?
December 4, 2015 at 5:36 am
Sure. Whatever you say.
Hey, see that thing, waaay up there, soaring over your head?
That would be the fucking point, which you still have managed to miss entirely. The reason I'm not addressing your points is that I don't care about them, you, or this argument you insist on having (mostly with yourself, from what I can gather). I don't care what the "official" definition of feminism is, and I don't care what you think about who is or isn't a True Scotsman. That is literally nothing to do with what I came to this thread to say, and I tire of getting tangled up in your indignity and outrage.
Once again, my point:
Youtube atheists often label themselves as anti-feminist because some feminists on the internet often put forward ideas and claims that a skeptic would regard as unsupported.
Whether the feminists they go after are "real" or "true" or "proper" feminists, I do not give any shits at all. Not one.
Verbatim from the mouth of Jesus (retranslated from a retranslation of a copy of a copy):
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you too will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. How can you see your brother's head up his ass when your own vision is darkened by your head being even further up your ass? How can you say to your brother, 'Get your head out of your ass,' when all the time your head is up your own ass? You hypocrite! First take your head out of your own ass, and then you will see clearly who has his head up his ass and who doesn't." Matthew 7:1-5 (also Luke 6: 41-42)
RE: Why so many "anti-feminists" in the atheist community?
December 4, 2015 at 6:15 am (This post was last modified: December 4, 2015 at 6:16 am by Homeless Nutter.)
(December 4, 2015 at 3:45 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Fair enough.
Anyway, my point was to answer the OP's question about why so many atheists on Youtube seem to be anti-feminists, and the reason (as far as I can tell) is that feminism (or at least Youtube feminism) is over-run with people who peddle sensationalism rather than reason, among other offenses, and atheists (especially skeptical ones) tend to be set off by that kind of thing.
While that's probably true, that there are a lot of sensationalist and even straight up out-of-their-minds feminists on YouTube - it's YouTube. The exact same thing could be said about pretty much every topic, or ideology being presented on that platform - as well as many others. Especially emotionally charged topics, like feminism/anti-feminism, atheism, animal welfare etc. I don't see a reason to distance myself from, let alone hate atheism and atheists, because of a bunch of Zeitgeist-generation atheist videos and blogs, or animal welfare activism, because of lunatics, like PETA.
If we are going to use YouTube as anything other than a source of entertainment - and especially if we use it as a main source of information about ANYTHING - we are well and truly f***ed...
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." - George Bernard Shaw
RE: Why so many "anti-feminists" in the atheist community?
December 4, 2015 at 7:52 am (This post was last modified: December 4, 2015 at 7:53 am by DespondentFishdeathMasochismo.)
(December 4, 2015 at 12:40 am)Losty Wrote:
(December 4, 2015 at 12:16 am)DespondentFishdeathMasochismo Wrote: Yes I did, damn proud of it too. Why should't I be? So you can keep dehumanizing me? Trying to make me feel guilty for the past. Fuck off. Look at the all the comments directed at me. You act like I have mental issues. Does it get more degrading? Why don't you try to amend, if it's so fucking important?
Probably because I haven't done anything to you. My disagreeing with you isn't grounds for you to hate me. My being honest with you about how you've treated people vs how you should treat people isn't grounds for you to want to hurt me.
I have nothing to amend. I still don't hate you. I still don't wish you any harm. I would never threaten you and if by some off chance you came to me needing help I would do everything in my power to help you. Because that's what kind of person I am. I don't understand why it makes you so angry that I disagree with you.
I have had disagreements and highly heated debates with other people on this forum and we have remained friends. I understand that in a debate or heated discussion, people get their emotions involved and things are said that aren't necessarily meant. That's life. I try not to let that kind of stuff get to me. But what you said about how you would hit me, that crossed the line for me. The more I think about it the more it hurts me. I don't understand why you would wish me harm, but I do not wish the same for you. I only wish that you would post less aggressively and lighten up a bit so that people could get to know you and the animosity could die down a little on all sides.
I do feel that you owe me an apology for what you said, but I won't hate you for not being sorry. It just makes it difficult to form a relationship with you. Every time you make a post it comes off as aggressive and mean. Have you considered posting in some lighter threads?
That must be easy for you to say. You have all your friends who give you like 5 likes in your thread, every single time you make a post diminishing what I have to say. You feminists get really indignant with anyone who disagrees with you. You know what arguing in this thread has done for me? Given me a bad reputation on this website, pissed me off, yet you only care about your fucking thread and the fact that I got really pissed off at you means nothing. This sick fucking sand trap that is this thread, just fucking makes everyone a vicious asshole. YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY I SAID I WANTED TO PUNCH YOU? You are so dense, it's unbelievable. You know what talking to you makes me feel, you know what talking to everyone in this thread makes me feel? Miserable.
