Violence in Relationships Towards Women Needs To Stop

Czarcasm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

...


thread like this, to use extremely broken logic and fallacies, ,to make a white-knight defense of the 'female' side of gender issues (noticeably sucking up to female posters while doing it), while often using smears, misrepresentations and lies to lambast/diminish the 'male' side whenever the argument might imply even minor criticism of female movements/organizations (such misrepresentations will likely be in display in reply to this as well...) - typically destroying any possibility of a worthwhile discussion in the process.

Way to tank your own argument there KB. Like I said, doing a bang up job of sabotaging your own "egalitarian" nonsense.

No you'll just assert it without proof instead, that's not 'low' at all is it...go on, if you have proof, back it up with the post.

No. I won't be baited into it either by you. You're aware of it, and I'm aware of it, and that's all that matters to me.

KomradeBishop

As I said "such misrepresentations will likely be in display in reply to this as well...", and on-cue you try to misrepresent my post as an attack on feminism/women - the same lie you tried to attribute to me earlier on in the thread, with zero backing.

You directly lied about my previous posting history as well, and even when you claim to have 'found' a previous post of mine which proves your statement, suddenly you won't post it...very convincing.

Your posting on other topics I generally don't disagree with, you're not an unlikable poster on other topics, but for whatever reason, you always turn gender-based topics into an absolute mess - and despite your decent posting on other topics, I'm going to keep on highlighting/criticizing your dire-quality of argument on these topics, very thoroughly - it's tiresome nonsense, and I'd like to actually be able to debate this kind of topic with people and learn something from that - with the way you bring down the quality of debate, that's not possible.

Czarcasm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

As I said "such misrepresentations will likely be in display in reply to this as well...", and on-cue you try to misrepresent my post as an attack on feminism/women - the same lie you tried to attribute to me earlier on in the thread, with zero backing.

It's there in black and white KB, I haven't misrepresented your opinion at all. I pointed out that despite your egalitarian claims, that post showed up your claims for what they were - complete nonsense.

You directly lied about my previous posting history as well, and even when you claim to have 'found' a previous post of mine which proves your statement, suddenly you won't post it...very convincing.

I didn't just find the post, I remembered it from two months back, but then I realised when you posted it under a previous account, I couldn't post it without giving away your previous identity, which would be completely unfair to you. I may fundamentally disagree with your opinion, but I'm not a complete cnut either. I can PM you the link to it though if you like?

Your posting on other topics I generally don't disagree with, you're not an unlikable poster on other topics, but for whatever reason, you always turn gender-based topics into an absolute mess - and despite your decent posting on other topics, I'm going to keep on highlighting/criticizing your dire-quality of argument on these topics, very thoroughly - it's tiresome nonsense, and I'd like to actually be able to debate this kind of topic with people and learn something from that - with the way you bring down the quality of debate, that's not possible.

You've hardly covered yourself in glory here either KB, but you're perfectly entitled to argue whatever way you wish, as am I. I would've liked to discuss the issue of female on male domestic violence and the effect it has on men and how do we encourage more men to report their abuser (one of the issues in the report tritium referred to was that men too often have a chivalrous attitude to women, and that they have an attitude that they can deal with it themselves, something I could very much identify with), but you seem more determined to use the thread to bang on about how people's attitudes to male victims of domestic violence is more heavily influenced by women's support groups and statistics.

You're looking to pass the responsibility on to someone else, rather than encourage men to take responsibility for their own welfare. Then you'll be able to provide more accurate statistics for male victims of domestic violence, and funders will be able to look at both sets of data and quickly spot that something isn't adding up here. Then they will question the data provided by women's groups.

Until then, you pointing out the discrepancy, you might as well be pissing into the wind and getting your own back.

KomradeBishop

Yes lets hear an explanation then, of how that 'shows up' my egalitarian claims?

I don't keep my previous account names - KyussBishop/KahBoom - secret; post away.

I have never mentioned anything in this thread about peoples attitude to male victims of domestic violence - I, like other posters, have taken issue with potentially ethically fraudulent statistics - which you always try to spin into something else, to try and make posters look either misogynistic or 'anti-womens-organizations' (about as idiotic as claiming that criticizing the US government, is 'Anti-American'), while claiming that you are 'merely' pointing out that you think it's ineffective to point out the stats problem.

If it's so ineffective to point out the potential stats problem, why in fúck are you so dogged about misrepresenting it Every. Single. Time. a poster brings it up? You're very clearly trying to smear it and shout it down.

Czarcasm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Yes lets hear an explanation then, of how that 'shows up' my egalitarian claims?

Claiming I'm white knighting and sucking up to female posters, what was that about? More 'credibility' nonsense? It's pathetic KB, and claiming to be egalitarian while actually interpreting my posts that way is anything but egalitarian. An egalitarian would regard the post, and place no importance on the gender of the poster. You read way too much into it and you showed up your true colours in your last post. I'll refrain from calling you misogynistic at this point as Shakespeare's Sister quite rightly pointed out it's a bit much, but you're sure as hell not egalitarian.

I don't keep my previous account names - KyussBishop/KahBoom - secret; post away.

Yeah good for you, that's your right. But the way I look at it, I have no right, even with your permission, to produce your post here. If it were on this account, I'd have fired away. If it were on this account and it was in another forum, I wouldn't. The mistake was mine in referring to it without checking that it had been made on your current account and for that I apologise. I made the offer to PM you the post.

I have never mentioned anything in this thread about peoples attitude to male victims of domestic violence - I, like other posters, have taken issue with potentially ethically fraudulent statistics - which you always try to spin into something else, to try and make posters look either misogynistic or 'anti-womens-organizations' (about as idiotic as claiming that criticizing the US government, is 'Anti-American'), while claiming that you are 'merely' pointing out that you think it's ineffective to point out the stats problem.

That's exactly my point. You haven't made a single comment on the issue that this thread is supposed to be about.

You could say me thinking about taking an apple without paying for it is potentially ethically fraudulent, but until I actually take the apple without paying for it, you really can't prove anything, so your claims are effectively meaningless.

(I'd be careful of your use of the word "potential" btw as that could come back to bite you in the ass in a discussion about the ethics of abortion).

If it's so ineffective to point out the potential stats problem, why in fúck are you so dogged about misrepresenting it Every. Single. Time. a poster brings it up? You're very clearly trying to smear it and shout it down.

I'm not misrepresenting anything. I've said on numerous occasions now that I don't agree with the statistics put forward by women's groups, but in order to counter their assertions, I have to come up with definitive proof from the point of view of male victims of domestic violence. I can't do that if I'm only basing my evidence on unreported anecdotes. That's the standard YOU have held me to. Effectively you've shot yourself in the foot and you can't even see it.

I can't simply say the rate of female on male domestic violence in Ireland is much higher than 6%, it's just that men don't report it. If I could include unreported anecdotes in my statistics, then I'd be a lot closer to 50/50, but because men won't report it, the perception that there is no need for more funding for male victims of domestic violence persists. The more men that come forward, that will lessen the stigma for other men, and society will begin to talk about it the very same way as they are now putting more and more pressure on the Government to provide funding for mental health services.

You want everything to happen overnight if the Government just throw money at the issue. Do you really think even if women's groups accurately reported the statistics on female victims of domestic violence, and the Government threw equal amounts of money at both male victims and female victims supports, that suddenly the statistics would even out?

They wouldn't, because men would still have the same attitudes that prevent them from reporting.

KomradeBishop

Czarcasm wrote: »

Claiming I'm white knighting and sucking up to female posters, what was that about? More 'credibility' nonsense? It's pathetic KB, and claiming to be egalitarian while actually interpreting my posts that way is anything but egalitarian. An egalitarian would regard the post, and place no importance on the gender of the poster. You read way too much into it and you showed up your true colours in your last post. I'll refrain from calling you misogynistic at this point as Shakespeare's Sister quite rightly pointed out it's a bit much, but you're sure as hell not egalitarian.

Defending the female side of every debate like this, even when that goes far beyond the point of balance and logic, such as defending actions here, which potentially downplay/diminish the affect of domestic violence on men - while usually habitually thanking any/all female posters posting anything that agrees with your 'side' (less pronounced on this thread than past ones); all of that honestly does look like some kind of white-knighting.

It's very frequent that you enter into debates in this fashion - getting onto the side of vocal female posters, thanking their posts regularly - and there's nothing wrong with being on their 'side' either, as those posters are nearly always very reasonable posters - but you enter that 'side' and then often take the view of that 'side' to an extreme which doesn't represent other posters, or you take the quality of argument down several notches, because your style of debate (as shown plenty in this thread) regularly involves innumerable fallacies and misrepresentations of your opponents.

This isn't so bad when the topic you enter is over a very black/white issue without many grey areas (where it's more difficult to end up opposing people with a valid point), but if it's a topic where there are grey areas (like this one, where some womens-support organizations may deserve criticism), you just end up digging trenches, defending actions that are worthy of criticism just because it's your 'side', and thus preventing any discussion of grey areas in the topic (which are typically the most interesting parts of a debate/discussion).


None of that invalidates my claim to being egalitarian - 'white knight' is not a sexist term, it's a descriptive one.

Czarcasm wrote: »

I'm not misrepresenting anything.

Yes you are - you keep labelling people 'anti-womens-organizations' for taking issue with the stats.

Czarcasm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

...

None of that invalidates my claim to being egalitarian - 'white knight' is not a sexist term, it's a descriptive one.

Jesus H. Christ KB, for your own sanity, stop reading into things so much. Initially I found your assessment above amusing, but then I berated myself because it's cruel to find amusement in others misfortune, and that's exactly what I see when I read the above. I hope you feel better having got it off your chest, but I just think it's rather unfortunate for you that your perception has been so misguided all this time.

I'm not even going to entertain the white knight nonsense because it's usually uttered by people with the mentality of a 12 year old child that's bitter because his best mate said he wanted to play kiss the girls instead of soccer... or something.

Yes you are - you keep labelling people 'anti-womens-organizations' for taking issue with the stats.

Never used that term, but if you're criticising women's support organisations for "potential ethical fraud", people are going to see it as criticising women's support organisations. The actual issue you have with them will be secondary.

Consider my opinion a criticism of your criticism. Then it's OK, right?

Henry9

What an interesting thread.
It's not often you see so many tactics from the feminist playbook in one place, and in such a disingenuous way too.

hatrickpatrick

I love watching the Bishop spar with the Czar. Not in any sense joking or making fun of either of you here, you two should have a talk show - unless either of you has an incredibly annoying voice, I'd imagine it would be highly entertaining.