OK, so you responded to Green and I responded to you and you responded to me still demonstrating no logic at all in your post.
Think about it, Green is insisting "it’s on the person making the claim to prove the claim." Assume that's true.
You respond with a claim. But you fail to abide by the rule of the person you replid to: It's on you to prove your claim.
That was illogical. You may be the most logical person in the world, I don't know, or care, what you posted was illogical. I'm not making remarks about you personally but your illogical post. I've made no claim, you have, so put your money where your mouth is.
If anyone was rude it was you after so many people have begged others to stop making things about Polly post about Polly.
====
Perhaps your post was illogical because the post you replied to was illogical.
As I already posted, it is simply a myth that you can't prove a negative. Saying tht is illogical because you can.
I accept "it’s on the person making the claim to prove the claim." Sure, as I just explained to you about your claim.
But the following is completely illogical: "The inability of literally anyone to provide one single post showing Polly expressing a hatred of men is as clear a sign as any that y’all have nothing." The fact that someone doesn't prove a claim is true does not prove that claim is false. All remarks like that do is question and demand but they amount to nothing at all. Like earlier, when I provided an argument in syllogistic form, and some questioned the validity of my first premise that radical feminists are misandrysts. Mere questioning the universailty of that premise does not prove it wrong, my not demonstrating its universality doesn't prove it wrong. Mere questioning and inventing rules of logic like that is what I refer to playing rhetorical games, other logic chopping. If you're going to challenge a statement why then you are yourself making a claim and we already accept that "it’s on the person making the claim to prove the claim." It's "as clear a sign as any that y’all have nothing."
====
Getting into the logic, silver?
Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler
Thanks. It mirrors much of what I've posted from others, faminists and radical feminists, about radical feminists. It leave out some things like those conservative feminists who seek equality within existing custom, tradition, and culture, like Mary Tyler Moore who promited family values, and many others who are pro-life. In short, feminism stretches out from radfems on the far left to conservatives on the right. And it ignore a whole lot of criticism of radfems for their hatred of men-no, not an emotional hatred like you hate me, but an ideological hatred, a hatred of abstract things like patrilineal hierachy, which is understandable because radfems see that as supremacy, as oppressive.
Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler
I've known too many women who wanted it both ways.
Wanting to be equal to men, in all things, in all ways, even becoming angry if a man dare to hold a door for them, then, also playing the helpless female, who needs a big strong man to come to her rescue....when she needed/wanted something, she's more than willing, in that case, to use her gender to her advantage.
We had names for those women.
Common (05-11-2018),stjames1_53 (05-11-2018)
During the 70's women could not get a car loan. My dad had to sign for my sister and she was a nurse making more than I was. I got a loan and she didn't.
Nothing special about the above. Women didn't have first class sitizenship then and there can't be any argument from anyone there at the time.
It's not true today in any way.
Liberals are a clear and present danger to our nation
Pick your enemies carefully.
stjames1_53 (05-11-2018)
stjames1_53 (05-11-2018)
Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler
If I can add just one more comment, @KathyS pointed out that conditions for American women are generally better today than 50 years ago. Fair enough! But how about compared to 20 years ago?
Further, what of the world outside the United States? Would you say that conditions for women have generally improved over the last 50 years in say the Middle East and North Africa, or generally gotten worse? (A cursory photographic comparison of how the female residents of Kabul tended to dress in 1968 versus in 2018 ought to suffice to answer that question for you.) Or how about in the Far East? Would say that women in India, China, or Russia today are treated as equitably with their male counterparts as they were during the Cold War? I wouldn't.
Last edited by IMPress Polly; 05-11-2018 at 01:44 PM.
Green Arrow (05-11-2018)
Not all radical feminists are equality feminists in the sense of aspiring to similarity to the way men currently are and are treated. I quoted Germaine Greer shortly ago here on this thread. She considers herself to be a "liberation feminist, not an equality feminist". It is important to her, however, that WOMEN define the ways in which we are distinct from men, not just have male gods, male states, and male cultures impose a proper social role upon us.Chris wrote:
You raise a point I've often question, the desire to be equal to men. Why would women want to be the same?
Chris (05-11-2018),Green Arrow (05-11-2018)