Feminist mob attempt to shut down talk on equality for males - MOD NOTE POST 10

Pawwed Rig

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Once he said C I stopped listening.

I think that is a good way to describe a group of people on live TV laughing about a person who has been mutilated in a way that will affect him for the rest of his life (presuming he didn't actually die).
Sharon Osbourne described it as "Fabulous". Bear in mind that she was a victim of domestic violence in the past you would imagine she would have a bit more empathy. So Yes, c*** is a strong word but perfectly justified in this case.

py2006

Here is the actual segment from the female panel on "The Talk":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91O3wDSy_HE

At the end of the clip, Darlene from Roseanne does try to highlight the obvious here but it is dismissed. Sharon Osbourne should be sacked for her comments.

After she laced her husband's food with an unknown drug or poison, he lay down, believing something was wrong with the food, according to police reports. Her husband then woke up tied to the bed as Becker cut off his penis with a knife. She then threw the genitalia in the garbage disposal and turned the disposal on

Source

um7y1h83ge06nx

py2006 wrote: »

At the end of the clip, Darlene from Roseanne does try to highlight the obvious here but it is dismissed. Sharon Osbourne should be sacked for her comments.

Fair play to her, it is so blindingly obvious. Imagine the justified uproar if they was a programme that had a good laugh about that horrific gang rape in India?

py2006

Javier Elegant Leprechaun wrote: »

Fair play to her, it is so blindingly obvious. Imagine the justified uproar if they was a programme that had a good laugh about that horrific gang rape in India?

The following week, they offered their attempt at an apology:

(Skip to 5.10)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKgwczruOSQ

Male genital mutilation is funny apparently.

Pawwed Rig

py2006 wrote: »

Here is the actual segment from the female panel on "The View":

I can't see the video on my work laptop but is it The Talk you meant? The View is a different daytime programme

py2006

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I can't see the video on my work laptop but is it The Talk you meant? The View is a different daytime programme

Yes, sorry I meant The Talk

py2006

Picture this situation:

A day time talk show for men hosted by men discussing how a man, on hearing his wife wants to leave him, drugs her then ties her up. Then when she wakes up he is mutilating her vagina with a knife, cutting it off (if that's possible) and destroying it so it can not be surgically replaced. Then the panel of 6 men start laughing and joking and suggesting she deserved it.

What would be the outcome?

um7y1h83ge06nx

From watching that video you have to wonder why is something like that broadcast?

1. Is it the media's fault for allowed female crazies airtime? I mean there is no way male crazies would be allowed on air joking about rape. And if they did the uproar would probably result in them being sacked.

2. Or is the media just bending under the power of society and providing what society wants?

3. Or is there a difference in women's psyche where a greater percentage of them see violence towards the opposite sex acceptable than men? Therefore that view point gets greater leverage in the media.

I really don't know the answers to the above.

um7y1h83ge06nx

py2006 wrote: »

Picture this situation:

A day time talk show for men hosted by men discussing how a man, on hearing his wife wants to leave him, drugs her then ties her up. Then when she wakes up he is mutilating her vagina with a knife, cutting it off (if that's possible) and destroying it so it can not be surgically replaced. Then the panel of 6 men start laughing and joking and suggesting she deserved it.

What would be the outcome?

I wonder have these women heard about how female genital mutilation is still practiced by some cultures, particularly in Africa?

I would love to ask them what they think of teenage girls being forced into allowing their clitoris being sliced off.

Genital mutilation is absolutely barbaric, some toolboxes they are to laugh about it. :mad:

Pawwed Rig

Javier Elegant Leprechaun wrote: »

From watching that video you have to wonder why is something like that broadcast?

I might be wrong but I believe it was broadcast live. CBS have officially distanced themselves from it but the anchor (the asian girl) is the network owners wife and Sharon Osbourne is the only (real) celebrity* on it and being fairly popular is most likely deemed unsackable.


*still not sure why she is famous.

skyfall2012

This woman did a vile and terrible thing to her husband and should be taken seriously and not used as comedy material. My stomach turned while watching them laughing at this. It is beyond inappropriate topic for a comedy show. The producer should be sacked, Sharon Osborne is an idiot, she didn't know any better.

donfers

This kind of stuff goes on all the time, females in the media have carte blanche to say what they like about men - did you see their excuse when genital mutilation of a woman was cited as a comparable example "ah but that's different" - equal when it suits, unequal when it suits

these type of "feminists" are not about equality, they are about hate and ridicule of men and they are openly tolerated - it's disgusting that so few have the courage to call them up on it

iptba

donfers wrote: »

This kind of stuff goes on all the time, females in the media have carte blanche to say what they like about men - did you see their excuse when genital mutilation of a woman was cited as a comparable example "ah but that's different" - equal when it suits, unequal when it suits

Yes.
Also, combine this with the fact that many men will often tell other men to stop complaining/mock them for doing so, quicker than they would women on average I think, and it's not surprising that men's issues don't get highlighted.

donfers wrote: »

these type of "feminists" are not about equality, they are about hate and ridicule of men and they are openly tolerated - it's disgusting that so few have the courage to call them up on it

Yes, agree.

It is frustrating to me when at a time when there are people paid to look out for sexism and misogyny that they can't simply use the same standards to out out for sexism against men and misandry.

py2006

donfers wrote: »

did you see their excuse when genital mutilation of a woman was cited as a comparable example "ah but that's different" - equal when it suits, unequal when it suits

In fairness the comparison was that of a womans breast and not her genetalia. Which is very different.

donfers

py2006 wrote: »

In fairness the comparison was that of a womans breast and not her genetalia. Which is very different.

true, but that makes it even worse - basically they were comparing the genital mutilation of a man saying it was lolworthy while the cutting off of a breast of a woman (not the genitalia) would be totally frowned upon if anyone tried to eek any comedy out of it

when they claimed "oh but that's different" they were suggesting to make fun of a female victim would be completely unacceptable (100% agree) even though the compared crime wasn't the mutilation of the woman's genitalia

I'm not sure why there is a mindset out there among certain people who claim to be far-out right-on liberals that making fun of this kind of stuff is ok if the action is perpetrated by a woman against a man - I fail to understand it and can't see any logic or integrity in that kind of worldview yet it often goes unquestioned

The Corinthian

donfers wrote: »

I fail to understand it and can't see any logic or integrity in that kind of worldview yet it often goes unquestioned

You presume that people question their own beliefs. Very, very few ever do. The vast majority go with the flow, with what is popularly right or wrong, seldom asking why it is right or wrong beyond the most simplistic of terms and so when faced with scenarios like the Catherine Kieu Becker case they can't make the connection.

In other cases, to make the connection, might contradict another existing belief, so they react in a way that they can either rationalize or ignore the fallacy in this belief - that a woman could be a perpetrator rather than victim is so completely alien to some that they rationalize some form of victim-hood to justify it ("she was driven to it") or simply go into a strange form of catatonic denial.

With the Catherine Kieu Becker case and the above talk show, I suspect a combination of the two was at play.

Wibbs

The Corinthian wrote: »

You presume that people question their own beliefs. Very, very few ever do. The vast majority go with the flow, with what is popularly right or wrong, seldom asking why it is right or wrong beyond the most simplistic of terms

This is sooooo true in my experience TC. I can count on the fingers of one hand involved in a previous lawnmower accident the number of people I've known who have questioned and then revised their beliefs without external pressure.

GalwayGuy2

You presume that people question their own beliefs. Very, very few ever do. The vast majority go with the flow, with what is popularly right or wrong, seldom asking why it is right or wrong beyond the most simplistic...

It reminds of the whole a racist doesn't think they're a racist thing. They'd, besides the few who see it a mark of pride, would probably get insulted at being called a racist and go inside themselves, blame you or blame the society as a whole.

iptba

January 6 Warren Farrell article in USA Today, "Column: Guns don't kill people — our sons do"
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/01/06/guns-newtown-sandy-hook-adam-lanza-boys/1566084/
- don't think it is particularly radical or offensive to women.

iptba

iptba wrote: »

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/criminal_law/criminal_offences/law_on_sex_offences_in_ireland.html



Here's a case where there was a prosecution of a 15 year old boy/young male for having sex with a 14 year old girl/young female: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/romeo-and-juliet-sex-law-is-unfair-court-told-1978656.html

Supreme court agreed with law: http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-should-laws-on-underage-sex-be-the-same-for-boys-and-girls-364706-Feb2012/

Kevin Myers: Equality is just a toxic piety that is ruthlessly promoted, just like the catechism once was
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-equality-is-just-a-toxic-piety-that-is-ruthlessly-promoted-just-like-the-catechism-once-was-3364249.html

It includes talk of the different rules based on gender in the statutory rape laws.

iptba

Another piece about censorship connected to the original post about the Toronto protest:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/the-crucifixion-of-erika-jarvis/

TORONTO STANDARD MAKES ITS OWN NEWS, THEN BURIES IT IN AN ATTEMPT TO COVER UP THE TRUTH.

Erica Jarvis is hanging on a cross.

On January 3, 2013, the Toronto Standard ran an article she penned, an interview with me [Paul Elam] which represented a first of sorts for the mainstream media. In a departure from the now standard mainstream narrative, and set against the backdrop of the University of Toronto student protest against Warren Farrell’s talk on the Boy Crisis, Jarvis actually put in a good effort toward balanced and ethical journalism.

Zombrex

A quick Google of Warren Farrell shows a lot to not like.

But the protestors shouting "F**k Warren Farrell" followed by "No hate speech on campus" is up there with "Behead those who say Islam is violent" in terms of cognitive dissidence.

Put this in the Social Justice Sally pile.

I'm also still waiting for the you-shouldn't-say-that-word brigade to realize that f**k is a sexual aggressive abuse term. It seems to be their fav word, on the AtheismPlus forum someone was told to "got f**k yourself" because they used the word "economy", which is apparently deeply offensive to poor people. :rolleyes:

The Corinthian

Zombrex wrote: »

A quick Google of Warren Farrell shows a lot to not like.

Genuine question, but what?

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote: »

Genuine question, but what?

Well The Myth of Male Power for a start seems, again after a brief Google, rather objectionable thesis. I haven't read the book, so I don't know maybe the title is meant to have some deeper meaning, but if the idea is that male power is a myth then that is ridiculous. Society is utterly dominated by the male perspective.

The Corinthian

Zombrex wrote: »

Well The Myth of Male Power for a start seems, again after a brief Google, rather objectionable thesis.

Ahh, I see now - a lot not to like because you disagree with his views. I thought you meant something more objective, like links with neo-Nazi groups, financial irregularities, or some-such.

I haven't read the book, so I don't know maybe the title is meant to have some deeper meaning, but if the idea is that male power is a myth then that is ridiculous. Society is utterly dominated by the male perspective.

Then read it, that's not what he means.

iptba

Zombrex wrote: »

Well The Myth of Male Power for a start seems, again after a brief Google, rather objectionable thesis. I haven't read the book, so I don't know maybe the title is meant to have some deeper meaning, but if the idea is that male power is a myth then that is ridiculous. Society is utterly dominated by the male perspective.

A summary of the book is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Male_Power

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote: »

Ahh, I see now - a lot not to like because you disagree with his views. I thought you meant something more objective, like links with neo-Nazi groups, financial irregularities, or some-such.

Well those would be subjective as well, wouldn't they? You have to not like neo-Nazi's to not like people with links to neo-Nazis.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then read it, that's not what he means.

Fair enough. Odd title though.

Zombrex

iptba wrote: »

A summary of the book is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Male_Power

Yup, that's what I read. Is that an accurate account of the book?

Reku

Zombrex wrote: »

Well The Myth of Male Power for a start seems, again after a brief Google, rather objectionable thesis. I haven't read the book, so I don't know maybe the title is meant to have some deeper meaning, but if the idea is that male power is a myth then that is ridiculous. Society is utterly dominated by the male perspective.

lol, just lol....:rolleyes:

Just a quick look at the media over the last month tells you that women are far more valued and protected than men:
“We have a major concern about the high rates of smoking among Irish women, particularly because lung cancer has now overtaken breast cancer as the main cause of cancer death among women in Ireland,”
And yet later in the article:

Lung cancer is now the biggest cancer killer in Ireland among both men and women, with 1,708 people dying in 2010, 702 of whom were women.

In other words the ratio of female to male deaths by lung cancer is: 702:1006, just over 2:3, yet they're making a fuss over the less affected group.

Then this week it's come out that men are 33% more likely to die of cancer in the UK (which we can be pretty sure is also the case here), where's the big fundraising action and government grants towards research into men's cancers? We have Movember but that's it, every other week there's some fundraiser for breast/cervical cancer (yes I am aware that men can also get breast cancer but it is still a mostly female condition). Do I hear any mention of free screening for testicular/prostate cancer like women get?

In Ireland, there are two free screening programmes, run by the National Cancer Screening service:

Breast Cancer (BreastCheck)
Cervical Cancer (CervicalCheck)

And a free bowel cancer (colorectal) cancer screening programme is due to start in January 2012.

There's wonderful new quota's to help women get ahead in boardrooms and politics, yet nothing similar to help men get ahead in teaching or other similarly female dominated sectors. Nor is there any push by feminists to get women into the more dangerous fields, but then I guess that again comes back to men just being less valued.


When a woman feels slighted, regardless of how imagined the slight she has numerous feminist lobby groups to turn to, when a mens' group tries to speak up about something they get shouted down (as you can see in this thread) by feminist groups who supposedly support equality. Jebus but Orwell would have a field day with what the average feminist group considers "equality".
They've even seized control of the whole rape and domestic violence issue to the point that many people can't even take the idea of female on male rape/violence seriously, never mind offering the victims any real hope of justice, instead a woman cutting off a man's genitals and throwing them into the garbage disposal is just something to be laughed at.

The Corinthian

Zombrex wrote: »

Yup, that's what I read. Is that an accurate account of the book?

Somewhat. The basic argument is that Patriarchy was not so simplistic as men having every advantage and women having none and that increasingly, due to the partial breakdown of patriarchy, men are losing the old advantages of patriarchy, but not the disadvantages.

Is this an objectionable position for you?

S.L.F

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Because hey believe that their side are severely discriminated against, and the other side has no discrimination at all.

I don't think it is that simple!

In my work in the MHRM I have come across many women who are helping because they can clearly see that men have it worse in many more ways than women do.

I also come across women whose sons have either committed suicide or cannot get access to their own children.

There is only one side, the human race.

S.L.F

Zombrex wrote: »

Well The Myth of Male Power for a start seems, again after a brief Google, rather objectionable thesis. I haven't read the book, so I don't know maybe the title is meant to have some deeper meaning, but if the idea is that male power is a myth then that is ridiculous. Society is utterly dominated by the male perspective.

Society is dominated by men but those men are doing whatever it is women want them to.

You should read this book as well.

The Manipulated Man

She got a lot of hatred shown to her as well back in the 1970's when she wrote the book.

You can see the video of her having a debate with a feminist here.

turbot

Robert Anton Wilson, one of my favourite authors, said that in the late 1960s he collected lots of radical feminist literature and transposed all references for men/male to jew, and had it typed out again.

When he showed the result to people and asked where they thought it came from, they all presumed it was from Nazi germany.

iptba

(October 7 press release from Canada)

http://equalitycanada.com/media-advisory-u-of-t-event-thursday-on-sexual-exploitation-of-boys-requires-police-presence/

Media Advisory: U of T Event Thursday on Sexual Exploitation of Boys Requires Police Presence

MEDIA ADVISORY – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

U of T Event Thursday on Sexual Exploitation of Boys Requires Police Presence
Men’s Issues Events Return to Universities, Often the Scene of Protest

TORONTO, ON – (October 7, 2014) The Canadian Association for Equality (CAFE) will continue its “men’s issues” programs at the University of Toronto by sponsoring “Violence and Sexual Abuse Against Men” with therapist Lynne MacDonellthis Thursday, October 9 at 7:00PM at the Koffler House Room 108 at 569 Spadina Crescent.

One in six men have been sexually assaulted and in the Canadian juvenile justice system an incredible 90% of sexual exploitation incidents are perpetrated by female guards against young males.

CAFE’s history of events highlighting provocative but overlooked facts that challenge ideological feminism have led to massive protests. Militants have disrupted events, pulled fire alarms and harassed members of the public, in contravention of University policies and the law.

The University of Toronto has assessed a need for police officers at Thursday’s event and changed the venue to ensure adequate protection. Marketing materials for the event have already been vandalized and stolen.

“It is deeply troubling that an event featuring a female therapist discussing her pioneering work providing mental health support to abused men could be targeted for protest or disruption,” said CAFE Spokesperson Geoff Stone.

“In the name of equality and social justice a contingent of radical ideologues opt to silence and bully perspectives different from their own, even those focused on men’s health.”

The University of Toronto considered charging the police fee to the student group hosting Thursday’s event but have now decided to absorb the cost.

“We are very grateful to the University for understanding that whatever our beliefs, those who value freedom of expression must come together to ensure that universities remain open places where different ideas can be explored and challenged,” said Stone.

“Bankrupting student groups with security fees only rewards and encourages illegal and dangerous behaviour while punishing those who engage in educational and peaceful debate.”

feargale

@iptba:
If roles were reversed I wonder if we would be getting reports of police baton charges and jail terms for offenders,

S.L.F

feargale wrote: »

@iptba:
If roles were reversed I wonder if we would be getting reports of police baton charges and jail terms for offenders,

I don't wonder at all I already know what would happen.

constance tench

S.L.F wrote: »

Society is dominated by men but those men are doing whatever it is women want them to.

You should read this book as well.

The Manipulated Man

She got a lot of hatred shown to her as well back in the 1970's when she wrote the book.

You can see the video of her having a debate with a feminist here.

Excellent debate!

iptba

(October 16 article

Bigoted board members at Sydney University block formation of men’s health group
http://www.avoiceformalestudents.com/bigoted-administrators-at-sydney-university-block-formation-of-mens-health-group-kate-bullen/

iptba

(Nov 22 article)

Free speech is so last century. Today’s students want the ‘right to be comfortable’

Student unions’ ‘no platform’ policy is expanding to cover pretty much anyone whose views don’t fit prevailing groupthink

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9376232/free-speech-is-so-last-century-todays-students-want-the-right-to-be-comfortable/

Seriously?

There seems to be a growing awareness going in the mainstream media around the extremist nature of modern feminism and a growing willingness to speak out against it in the public view.

iptba

(Ireland this time)

Men’s Human Rights Ireland responds to feminist censoring of IMD

December 2, 2014 By Men's Human Rights Ireland —27 Comments

One of our Men’s Human Rights Ireland (MHRI) members was scheduled to deliver an address at Belfast City Hall this past International Men’s Day (IMD) but was abruptly informed at the 11th hour that his speech had been cancelled.

The reason for this cancellation was apparently due to several complaints made against the group that had invited MHRI to speak, Men’s Rights Northern Ireland (MRNI), by the “Belfast Feminist Network” (BFN) under the leadership of one Kellie Turtle, who in her private, closed discussion group expressed outrage that there was even a men’s day in the first place:

continues at: http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/mens-human-rights-ireland-responds-to-feminist-censoring-of-imd/

KomradeBishop

iptba wrote: »

(Nov 22 article)

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9376232/free-speech-is-so-last-century-todays-students-want-the-right-to-be-comfortable/

That came up in another thread the other day - and as usual, took less than a minute to start finding issues:

KomradeBishop wrote:

So, this author, Brendan O'Neill, denies global warming, is against tackling racism in football and denies instances of racism (thinks it's a sign of a 'class war' ), is against same-sex marriage and against campaigns for it.

In that article, he is complaining about feminist students protesting an abortion debate, where no female debater appeared to be invited to debate, and where the person chosen for the pro-choice position, was a borderline racist, who is also against same-sex marriage.

Then he goes on a lengthy rant/whine about students-of-today being against free speech, because they keep exercising their right to free speech by protesting his debates on various topics like:

I’ve been jeered at by students at the University of Cork for criticising gay marriage; cornered and branded a ‘denier’ by students at University College London for suggesting industrial development in Africa should take precedence over combating climate change; lambasted by students at Cambridge (again) for saying it’s bad to boycott Israeli goods.

Pro-Israeli-government there too, nice.

Good company to have there, for backing anti-feminist attacks.

He pretty much just considers other people exercising their right to free speech, by protesting against him, as being a curtailment of free speech, when his lopsided 'debates' end up being cancelled.

Not really any different to students protesting against ardent Zionists hosting 'debates' at their universities, where it's obvious that they're only there to soapbox in favour of Israel.

KomradeBishop

iptba wrote: »

(Ireland this time)

Mens Human Rights Northern Ireland had no-less than Paul Elam from AVfM producing content that was going to be a part of their Belfast talk:

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Paul Ealm for agreeing to produce a presentation for the Belfast International Mens Day event, It was the right idea and was stopped by those that have a problem with free speech.

https://www.facebook.com/northernirelandmensrights?_fb_noscript=1

So yes, given that they have been supported directly by a scumbag like Paul Elam (see here), and heavily supported by AVfM in general, I'm not surprised people were complaining about the group.

Always with these exaggerated controversies, and links posted in general: With a little bit of searching you can start to find problems.


People who take mens rights seriously, need to start disassociating from people like Elam; the same people who criticize feminists for not distancing from their extremists, seem to actively work with and support the extremists within the mens rights movement.

That's not merely 'failing to distances themselves' like is said to happen with feminists and their extremists, it is actively collaborating with the extremists within the mens rights movement.

tritium

KomradeBishop wrote: »

That came up in another thread the other day - and as usual, took less than a minute to start finding issues:

He pretty much just considers other people exercising their right to free speech, by protesting against him, as being a curtailment of free speech, when his lopsided 'debates' end up being cancelled.

Not really any different to students protesting against ardent Zionists hosting 'debates' at their universities, where it's obvious that they're only there to soapbox in favour of Israel.

Your usual ad hominem and yet you've offered nothing to discredit the message itself.

I do love you idea of exercising by their right to free speech though- manifest by trying to shut up anyone you disagree with. Strange how your idea of finding issues waxes and wanes depending in how things align with your politics

KomradeBishop

tritium wrote: »

Your usual ad hominem and yet you've offered nothing to discredit the message itself.

I do love you idea of exercising by their right to free speech though- manifest by trying to shut up anyone you disagree with. Strange how your idea of finding issues waxes and wanes depending in how things align with your politics

Except I directly debunked his argument, by showing that what he is really complaining about, is students exercising their right to free speech, by protesting against him. The ad-hominem is a bonus (and in this case, is perfectly valid/non-fallacious, for informing people what the author is like, and how lacking in credibility he is).

Show how my idea of finding issues, depends on my politics. You're not averse to making up smears out of nothing, to try and supplement your argument, when there is nothing provided to show any truth to them.

tritium

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Except I directly debunked his argument, by showing that what he is really complaining about, is students exercising their right to free speech, by protesting against him. The ad-hominem is a bonus (and in this case, is perfectly valid/non-fallacious, for informing people what the author is like, and how lacking in credibility he is).

Show how my idea of finding issues, depends on my politics. You're not averse to making up smears out of nothing, to try and supplement your argument, when there is nothing provided to show any truth to them.

No not unless exercising free speech is equivalent to shutting others up by forcing the cancellation of the talk. Now don't get me wrong, ill defend the right to be pro censorship even if it makes me uncomfortable- just don't pretend its a free speech stance.

And on your politics, please let's not get back to the last time we debated an issue on boards and you tied yourself up on embarrassing knots to defend a position you'd preciously stated you'd concede as reprehensible

KomradeBishop

They didn't force anything - they protested (exercising their right to free speech), and the university decided upon themselves to cancel a debate, when they saw how massively lopsided it was.

The two are free to have the debate anywhere else they like, to exercise their free speech - the university doesn't have to be a host to it if they don't want to; if the university doesn't want to represent a debate, from a racism-apologist, Zionist/Israeli-government-apologist, who also opposes same-sex marriage etc., can't blame them at all.

As I said in the original post: Good company you (and others defending him) are keeping there.


It's notable how many mens rights posters (definitely not all of them - there are many reasonable posters), laud and back/defend people with reprehensible views, wherever it suits them; never a hint of criticism towards the people they are defending, even when really appalling crap is pointed out.

tritium

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's notable how many mens rights posters (definitely not all of them - there are many reasonable posters), laud and back/defend people with reprehensible views, wherever it suits them; never a hint of criticism towards the people they are defending, even when really appalling crap is pointed out.

Just men's rights posters that do that is it?




(I do love the way though that you infer that criticising the actions of a group is equivalent to endorsing those they oppose- I guess that makes anyone who's anti Israeli into a pro Nazi right?)

KomradeBishop

You're doing it right here - yet instead of addressing the criticism, you just give a "well others do it too!" type response, as if that justifies it.

You don't even have any examples of others doing it either - because you know that in no-time, your examples will be knocked down as a misrepresentation; you want to string it out, to try and make the mud stick.
The misrepresentation I predict you will use, if giving examples: Trying to portray people who criticize your flawed arguments, as 'defending' the people you are criticizing, when they are not - possibly coupled with selectively/deliberately ignoring examples, of them also criticising the same people you were.

That's another thing you do all of the time: Make claims - especially 'appeals to hypocrisy' like the above - as a smear, without backing it up with anything, hoping it will stick.
Exactly like you do with your last sentence there - nothing at all to back that up, just a nonsense smear you've thrown out (where I've done nothing like that), hoping it will stick.

tritium

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You're doing it right here - yet instead of addressing the criticism, you just give a "well others do it too!" type response, as if that justifies it.

You don't even have any examples of others doing it either - because you know that in no-time, your examples will be knocked down as a misrepresentation; you want to string it out, to try and make the mud stick.
The misrepresentation I predict you will use, if giving examples: Trying to portray people who criticize your flawed arguments, as 'defending' the people you are criticizing, when they are not - possibly coupled with selectively/deliberately ignoring examples, of them also criticising the same people you were.

That's another thing you do all of the time: Make claims - especially 'appeals to hypocrisy' like the above - as a smear, without backing it up with anything, hoping it will stick.
Exactly like you do with your last sentence there - nothing at all to back that up, just a nonsense smear you've thrown out (where I've done nothing like that), hoping it will stick.

More waffle, a wall of meaningless sound.

If you want examples take a look at some of your own contributions on boards in the last while.

Frankly I couldn't be arsed getting into more trench warfare with you. I find your debating style too dishonest to be worth the effort.