When does common sense advice becoome victim blaming?

[tesseract]

That's like arguing all right-leaning people are shaped directly by what Take Back Australia organisers and Andrew Bolt say.

It's simply not true.

The NAFALT deflection has been discussed previously on numerous occasions in feminism-related threads. Instead of going over old ground, just watch the video and educate yourself, if not you care to use BF's search function. The video will explain why you're mistaken.

NAFALT!!!!1!!1!

 

[ShanDog]

I can't see the video on my work computer, but a quick google search means I can see where this is going.

If you want to play this game, I'll happily refer you on to this:


Fallacy of composition

"The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

 

[tesseract]

I can't see the video on my work computer, but a quick google search means I can see where this is going.

If you want to play this game, I'll happily refer you on to this:

Fallacy of composition

"The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

How can you call "fallacy" when you can't even view the video?

 

[ShanDog]

Because googling 'NAFALT deflection' returns links to the video titled "Not All Feminists Are Like That", and when added to this premise -

Feminism is what its actions consist of - as directed by prominent and educated feminists who shape and push the agenda - not the rhetoric of the average person who's attached the label to themselves.

- I can see that what you are doing is a fallacy of composition.

You have decided that a sample of people you determine to be "prominent and educated feminists" are representative of the spectrum of Feminism; an ideology that has decades of history, waves/phases, goals and differing fundamental ideals.

In short, you generalise and have picked the most extreme of examples at the exclusion of the greater 'body' to support a viewpoint.

 

[tesseract]

Because googling 'NAFALT deflection' returns links to the video titled "Not All Feminists Are Like That", and when added to this premise -

- I can see that what you are doing is a fallacy of composition.

You have decided that a sample of people you determine to be "prominent and educated feminists" are representative of the spectrum of Feminism; an ideology that has decades of history, waves/phases, goals and differing fundamental ideals.

In short, you generalise and have picked the most extreme of examples at the exclusion of the greater 'body' to support a viewpoint.

You have decided, without looking into the explanations I've provided now by video and previously in feminism-related threads by way of explanation, to call fallacy in the face of such reason. Your conclusion is thus close-minded, and the video will explain why it's ill-conceived.

 

[ShanDog]

You have decided, without looking into the explanations I've provided now by video and previously in feminism-related threads by way of explanation, to call fallacy in the face of such reason. Your conclusion is thus close-minded, and the video will explain why it's ill-conceived.

Argument from authority

Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when used in argumentative reasoning.

Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence, as authorities can come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

 

[ShanDog]

I'll watch the video when I get a chance. But I am willing to bet it's s**t.

 

[tesseract]

Argument from authority

Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when used in argumentative reasoning.

Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence, as authorities can come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

No one has used an argument from authority in this instance, for I haven't claimed Karen Straughn to be such an authority. Citing a video that explains why you're mistaken isn't an "argument from authority", instead it's pointing to where reason that opposes your view on the matter can be found.

 

[ShanDog]

No one has used an argument from authority in this instance, for I haven't claim Karen Straughn to be such an authority. Citing a video that explains why you're mistaken isn't an "argument from authority", instead it's pointing to where reason that opposes your view on the matter can be found.

Oh good, so you are well aware whatever that video says is just a source of an argument, not an authority on the matter. That's a start. Doesn't really fit in with the inference here though:

Your conclusion is thus close-minded, and the video will explain why it's ill-conceived.

 

[ShanDog]

We can cut out the middle-man if you like though - do you believe that feminism on the whole is best represented by the following, much like suggesting all arabs are terrorists, or all Christians are hate-filled evangelicals?:

The feminist message is to solely blame men and solely name men as the perpetrators and women as the sole victims. There's no gender neutral "someone" and "person" in the feminist narrative. It's hate speech against males on feminists' part to go down this path, yet they do so unashamedly. Feminist misandry gets rationalized away by their blinkered gynocentric view of 'think of da wymynz' first, foremost and only.

Feminism is what its actions consist of - as directed by prominent and educated feminists who shape and push the agenda - not the rhetoric of the average person who's attached the label to themselves.

Or do you acknowledge that only minority portion could accurately be described as such?

There is a correct answer here, by the way.

 

[tesseract]

Oh good, so you are well aware whatever that video says is just a source of an argument, not an authority on the matter. That's a start. Doesn't really fit in with the inference here though:

Of course I'm well aware of such, for I'm the one telling you the video is not your claimed "appeal from authority".

The context of my supposed inference of "Your conclusion is thus close-minded, and the video will explain why it's ill-conceived" is due to your previous comment of "I can see that what you are doing is a fallacy of composition. You have decided that a sample of people you determine to be "prominent and educated feminists" are representative of the spectrum of Feminism; an ideology that has decades of history, waves/phases, goals and differing fundamental ideals. In short, you generalise and have picked the most extreme of examples at the exclusion of the greater 'body' to support a viewpoint". Your comment here was close-minded because you drew your conclusion before you viewed the counter point I linked for you. Only later on did you say that you'd view the video.

 

[tesseract]

We can cut out the middle-man if you like though...

I've answered you already by providing the videos reasoning. Use the search function for my posts if you want more - but the video more than suffices. If you don't wish to educate yourself, that's fine by me as it doesn't affect me, but you can't dismiss counter reasoning as not existing, for such would only show up your ignorance and dogmatism.

There is a correct answer here, by the way.

Yes, there is. It's in the video.

 

[ShanDog]

Your comment here was close-minded because you drew your conclusion before you viewed the counter point I linked for you. Only later on did you say that you'd view the video.

I have pointed out the opposite; it's your argument that was close-minded. Let me highlight some key words in the post you made:

The feminist message is to solely blame men and solely name men as the perpetrators and women as the sole victims. There's no gender neutral "someone" and "person" in the feminist narrative. It's hate speech against males on feminists' part to go down this path, yet they do so unashamedly. Feminist misandry gets rationalized away by their blinkered gynocentric view of 'think of da wymynz' first, foremost and only.

Pretty unambiguous. Again, my explanation that there are many facets to the feminist ideology (which is as close to a universally agreed fact as they get) is the opposite to being close-minded.

 

[Docker Alyssa]

Argument from authority

Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when used in argumentative reasoning.

Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence, as authorities can come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

This definition use against the anti-feminist lacks reason, applicability and self awareness. You are defending feminist viewpoints, without skepticism, that come from an argument from authority fallacy.

Feminism just claims truth, and when you actually look into the veil of stats they present and the groups that use this propaganda, you find they are consistently debunked. Not just by "loons" as some people lean on to discredit -- but scientists, economists, psychologists, intellectual logical thinkers of both female and male genders, and in some rare cases previous waves of feminists (Hoff Sommers). Feminism lobby governments, media and institutions almost as hard as banking interests do. That is their "clout" level. They are in education systems, in think-tanks and other influencing mechanisms. At the very least people should view feminism as a self interest sect of deception using authorities, appeals to authority and appeals to popularity (biological protection of women) to assert their agenda into society. Means to an end, I feel a lot of people forgive their antics for this premise.

At the very best their campaigns and efforts should be critisised, scrutinised, argued strongly and even dismantled if logic and reason trumps their stance. The blind who follow feminist beliefs leverage "argument from authority" in defense of feminism -- not the other way around.

Example 1; The pay gap has been said about a million times in articles, books, feminist talks, in the media in the last 25 years, therefore it must be true. Conventional wisdom, right? Classic argument from popularity/authority.

 

[tesseract]

I have pointed out the opposite; it's your argument that was close-minded.

It's not so based upon your opinion.

Pretty unambiguous. Again, my explanation that there are many facets to the feminist ideology (which is as close to a universally agreed fact as they get) is the opposite to being close-minded.

What feminism is isn't concluded by feminist consensus, as your comment "which is as close to a universally agreed fact as they get" implies. Hence your conclusion is faulty.

 

[ShanDog]

This definition use against the anti-feminist lacks reason, applicability and self awareness. You are defending feminist viewpoints, without skepticism, that come from an argument from authority fallacy.

Feminism just claims truth, and when you actually look into the veil of stats they present and the groups that use this propaganda, you find they are consistently debunked. Not just by "loons" as some people lean on to discredit -- but scientists, economists, psychologists, intellectual logical thinkers of both female and male genders, and in some rare cases previous waves of feminists (Hoff Sommers). Feminism lobby governments, media and institutions almost as hard as banking interests do. That is their "clout" level. They are in education systems, in think-tanks and other influencing mechanisms. At the very least people should view feminism as a self interest sect of deception using authorities, appeals to authority and appeals to popularity (biological protection of women) to assert their agenda into society. Means to an end, I feel a lot of people forgive their antics for this premise.

At the very best their campaigns and efforts should be critisised, scrutinised, argued strongly and even dismantled if logic and reason trumps their stance. The blind who follow feminist beliefs leverage "argument from authority" in defense of feminism -- not the other way around.

Example 1; The pay gap has been said about a million times in articles, books, feminist talks, in the media in the last 25 years, therefore it must be true. Conventional wisdom, right? Classic argument from popularity/authority.

I am not defending anything. I don't agree with many feminist viewpoints - mostly those on the extreme.

I also disagree with Tesseract's 50 word summation of the sole purpose of the feminist ideology because, quite frankly, it's ludicrous to suggest you can.

As an example, I just searched a university online library for feminist ideology and returned 2000 peer-reviewed results. If you think reading those would result in the definition he gave....

 

[ShanDog]

What feminism is isn't concluded by feminist consensus, as your comment "which is as close to a universally agreed fact as they get" implies. Hence your conclusion is faulty.

Who determines what feminism is, then? And by what authority?

 

[tesseract]

Who determines what feminism is, then? And by what authority?

Read feminism related thread(s) in SRP. I'm not going over old territory for every newbie who decides to enter the conversation. Do some catching up before you play.

 

[Docker Alyssa]

Who determines what feminism is, then? And by what authority?

There is no one authority. It's a history of dogma. Some womens groups use some of it, some use all of it, some are extremist. Doesn't matter though because these groups all use the "feminism" label to enact all kinds of agendas individually. A single body, a coalition of groups etc will go about lobbying a government with "compelling stats" and propose legislation for the sole benefit of women. This is what 3rd wave does. And of course these bodies will not want to piss off the "female constituency" -- That has been demonstrated in this section regarding rape definition and child support by myself and many others. Predictably ignored

 

[ShanDog]

Read feminism related thread(s) in SRP. I'm not going over old territory for every newbie who decides to enter the conversation. Do some catching up before you play.

Read feminism based academic material. I'm not going over 60 years of territory for every internet wannabe intellectual. Do some actual research before you play.

 

[cartwright]

That would be the extremist feminists. Feminism is no more black and white than political leanings. The majority live somewhere closer to the middle and in amongst the grey than the polar opposite ends.

Absolutely. It's quite simplistic to believe everyone fits into one little box on feminism.but this is a poster who is a religious freak and believes rape isnt rape if she doesn't scream.

It's mildly amusing that he's so hysterical about extreme feminism, when he's just another deluded extremist himself

 

[tesseract]

I also disagree with Tesseract's 50 word summation of the sole purpose of the feminist ideology because, quite frankly, it's ludicrous to suggest you can.

Which supposed summation of feminist ideology are you speaking of? The context of my post was specifically and clearly wrt rape, and it wasn't a summation of the feminist ideology.

 

[ShanDog]

There is no one authority. It's a history of dogma. Some womens groups use some of it, some use all of it, some are extremist. Doesn't matter though because these groups all use the "feminism" label to enact all kinds of agendas individually. A single body, a coalition of groups etc will go about lobbying a government with "compelling stats" and propose legislation for the sole benefit of women. And of course these bodies will not want to piss off the "female constituency" -- That has been demonstrated in this thread regarding rape definition and child support by myself and many others. Predictably ignored

I haven't suggested anything different.

 

[tesseract]

Read feminism based academic material. I'm not going over 60 years of territory for every internet wannabe intellectual. Do some actual research before you play.

I have read some, and have spent many a post in these threads arguing against their hypocrisies and double standards and debunking feminist claims.

 

[ShanDog]

Which supposed summation of feminist ideology are you speaking of? The context of my post was specifically and clearly wrt rape, and it wasn't a summation of the feminist ideology.

You should avoid absolutist language in your posts then.