Science is Sexist

[Forty Two]

All of them? Extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence....

I've already gone through this by citing to the folks, for example, in the OP, who are professors and activists. I've previously cited to folks writing for respected publications like the Guardian. Professors at major universities. Prominent activists invited to speak at the United Nations and hired by Google as their diversity consultants, and such.

"All?" We've also been over this many times - there is no (or hardly any - certainly none that I know of) idea or belief that is held by "all" of any group. That doesn't mean we can't talk about philosophies, religions, "-isms" and other ideas and have a consensus on what the basic principles of ideas and isms are. There is meaning to these words. The fact that "not all" of the folks subscribe to all of the same precepts does not mean that the words are meaningless.

"All of them" is not my claim.

There is meaning to words. When you say "the feminists" you are necessarily talking about all of them. You need to learn to use language properly if you want to avoid these issues.

Silly goose....

When I say "the feminists" as in this sentence, "Well, the feminists doing the publishing, writing, teaching and public speaking, and activism, are of the full retard variety...." I have not referred to "all of them." You, pErvin, need to learn to use the language properly if you want to avoid looking like a total ass. This is yet another time when you've been shown to be full of shit, so you may wish to stop trying at this point.

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1679173

[laklak]

Just stock up on polyester Hawaiian shirts, they never go out of style.


I rest my case.

Too right mate. Unfortunately, when we moved to the UK, Mrs. Lak took the opportunity to "accidentally lose" all my Hawaiian shirts. She has replaced two of them over the intervening decade and a half, but they're sad wanna-be Hawaiian shirts, in muted colors. What males will put up with to get laid, eh?

[pErvinalia]

All of them? Extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence....

I've already gone through this by citing to the folks, for example, in the OP, who are professors and activists. I've previously cited to folks writing for respected publications like the Guardian. Professors at major universities. Prominent activists invited to speak at the United Nations and hired by Google as their diversity consultants, and such.

"All?" We've also been over this many times - there is no (or hardly any - certainly none that I know of) idea or belief that is held by "all" of any group. That doesn't mean we can't talk about philosophies, religions, "-isms" and other ideas and have a consensus on what the basic principles of ideas and isms are. There is meaning to these words. The fact that "not all" of the folks subscribe to all of the same precepts does not mean that the words are meaningless.

"All of them" is not my claim.

There is meaning to words. When you say "the feminists" you are necessarily talking about all of them. You need to learn to use language properly if you want to avoid these issues.

Silly goose....

When I say "the feminists" as in this sentence, "Well, the feminists doing the publishing, writing, teaching and public speaking, and activism, are of the full retard variety...." I have not referred to "all of them." You, pErvin, need to learn to use the language properly if you want to avoid looking like a total ass. This is yet another time when you've been shown to be full of shit, so you may wish to stop trying at this point.

Yes, I know, black is white. "The feminists" who do xyz necessarily include every feminist who does xyz. This is fucking basic English. FFS.

[Forty Two]

All of them? Extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence....

I've already gone through this by citing to the folks, for example, in the OP, who are professors and activists. I've previously cited to folks writing for respected publications like the Guardian. Professors at major universities. Prominent activists invited to speak at the United Nations and hired by Google as their diversity consultants, and such.

"All?" We've also been over this many times - there is no (or hardly any - certainly none that I know of) idea or belief that is held by "all" of any group. That doesn't mean we can't talk about philosophies, religions, "-isms" and other ideas and have a consensus on what the basic principles of ideas and isms are. There is meaning to these words. The fact that "not all" of the folks subscribe to all of the same precepts does not mean that the words are meaningless.

"All of them" is not my claim.

There is meaning to words. When you say "the feminists" you are necessarily talking about all of them. You need to learn to use language properly if you want to avoid these issues.

Silly goose....

When I say "the feminists" as in this sentence, "Well, the feminists doing the publishing, writing, teaching and public speaking, and activism, are of the full retard variety...." I have not referred to "all of them." You, pErvin, need to learn to use the language properly if you want to avoid looking like a total ass. This is yet another time when you've been shown to be full of shit, so you may wish to stop trying at this point.

Yes, I know, black is white. "The feminists" who do xyz necessarily include every feminist who does xyz. This is fucking basic English. FFS.

Dude what the fuck?!?!?

Every feminist who does XYZ is not "all of them [feminists]" -- it's a subset of feminists.

Thus, I have not referred to all feminists - and I'm referring to feminists who publish, write, and are activists, etc. as a general category. That doesn't fucking mean every god-damn last one of them march in fucking lockstep on every fucking issue. Christ you are fucking ridiculous.

[pErvinalia]

Oh man. Debating you is like trying to debate a turnip. I asked you "all of them?". "Them" refers to the subject of your post. That is - "The feminists who do xyz". You are claiming that all feminists who do xyz are of the full retard variety. That is fucking bullshit, as you've been shown in the past. Please go back to school and learn fucking English.

[Forty Two]

In the English language, the reference to feminism or some subgroup thereof, is not suggestive of each and every person of those groups believing exactly the same thing.

It's like saying that scientists have settled the issue of climate change. You can say that with handwringing over the few who don't agree and haven't signed on. it's like the Christian atheists - we can refer to Christian beliefs without agonizing about the fact that Christian atheists exist.

God damn, man you are a dimwit.

[pErvinalia]

If you said "the scientists have settle the issue of climate change", you would be unequivocally wrong. Science, by the methods of science, has settled it. But individual scientists is a different subject. Words have meaning. When you refer to "the [insert group] that [xyz]", you are necessarily referring to all of them that [xyz].

[Brian Peacock]

Indeediedoodie.

[rainbow]

Every feminist who does XYZ is not "all of them [feminists]" -- it's a subset of feminists.

...then you use the grammatical modifier 'some'.

Plain English. Use it.

[Forty Two]

If you said "the scientists have settle the issue of climate change", you would be unequivocally wrong. Science, by the methods of science, has settled it. But individual scientists is a different subject. Words have meaning. When you refer to "the [insert group] that [xyz]", you are necessarily referring to all of them that [xyz].

Like your references to "liberals" and "conservatives."

Look, when I say "American Republicanism means X, Y, Z" I am not saying that every, single, last Republican follows lockstep. It's a generality.

When one says that Jainism involves X, Y and Z, does that mean every Jain believes everything every other Jain believes? Of course not.

When one says MRAs are misogynistic, does that mean every single one of them is misogynistic?

Nobody talks like that. You're wrong. We know that Republicans can vary in their beliefs, as can Jains, MRAs, Christians, conservatives, liberals, communists -- everyone. Yet we can still talk about these groups and "isms."

The time this "not every, single, one" issue comes up seems to be mostly with feminists and Muslims. We have debates all the time about Christians and Christianity, conservatism and conservatives, liberalism and liberals, and the like -- but with feminists and Islam, we invariably get some dickhead rushing in to make sure everybody understands that nobody really knows what "feminism" or "Islam" is and we can't make any assertions about what this "isms" are, because not every, single one of them believes all the things every other one of them believes.

[pErvinalia]

If you said "the scientists have settle the issue of climate change", you would be unequivocally wrong. Science, by the methods of science, has settled it. But individual scientists is a different subject. Words have meaning. When you refer to "the [insert group] that [xyz]", you are necessarily referring to all of them that [xyz].

Like your references to "liberals" and "conservatives."

Look, when I say "American Republicanism means X, Y, Z" I am not saying that every, single, last Republican follows lockstep. It's a generality.

That's right, because you are specifically referring to an ideology, not a group of people.

When one says that Jainism involves X, Y and Z, does that mean every Jain believes everything every other Jain believes? Of course not.

That's right, because you are referring to an ideology, not a group of people.

When one says MRAs are misogynistic, does that mean every single one of them is misogynistic?

Yes. Literally.

Nobody talks like that. You're wrong.

Yes I know, black is white.

[Forty Two]

Every feminist who does XYZ is not "all of them [feminists]" -- it's a subset of feminists.

...then you use the grammatical modifier 'some'.

Plain English. Use it.

Oh, I generally do, and in the post you're referring to, I was quite clear about the subset I was talking about.

When it comes to feminism and Islam, however, some of you are log dogs with a chew toy. You won't let this shit go and all you want to do is harp about "not all." We all get it, o.k? Everybody knows that not all self-identifying feminists ascribe to all of the pillars and planks of feminism, and not all Muslim accept every dogma of Islam. Just like everybody knows that not all men are misogynists, not all white people are racist, not all straight people are homophobic, and not all CISgendered people are transphobic.... Oh wait, some feminists definitely don't get it... http://www.feministcurrent.com/2014/11/ ... -misogyny/ All men are misogynistic.... all white people are racists -- http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politi ... g-about-it

[Forty Two]

If you said "the scientists have settle the issue of climate change", you would be unequivocally wrong. Science, by the methods of science, has settled it. But individual scientists is a different subject. Words have meaning. When you refer to "the [insert group] that [xyz]", you are necessarily referring to all of them that [xyz].

Like your references to "liberals" and "conservatives."

Look, when I say "American Republicanism means X, Y, Z" I am not saying that every, single, last Republican follows lockstep. It's a generality.

That's right, because you are specifically referring to an ideology, not a group of people.

Generally I refer to feminism, and you still make the same objections. Sometimes I refer to feminists, and when I do I am usually careful to refer to mainstream or prevailing feminists -- activists - and name examples.

So, if I refer to feminism as an ideology, you'll shut your fucking pie-hole about this absurd side-issue where you think you need to hand-wring every time someone makes a general statement and you have ride in with your lance to ensure everyone is educated to know that not all of a large group of people believe exactly the same things?

I'd love to see you do it when people use the words Christians, conservatives and and Republicans.

When you use the word conservatives, which you have, you've not limited it to "some" and you've made general statements about them (very negative). Why aren't you careful to specify "not all conservatives."

When one says that Jainism involves X, Y and Z, does that mean every Jain believes everything every other Jain believes? Of course not.

That's right, because you are referring to an ideology, not a group of people.

When one says MRAs are misogynistic, does that mean every single one of them is misogynistic?

Yes. Literally.

Nobody talks like that. You're wrong.

Yes I know, black is white.[/quote]

No, you're wrong.

[Forty Two]

Here's an example of your attack on "conservatives" and not "conservatism" as an ideology. http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... s#p1674784

You say "conservatives fear what they don't understand."

Very broad general statement, like "feminists believe x" or "Muslims believe y."

Did you mean EVERY single "conservative" fears what they don't understand? So, if you don't fear what you don't understand, you're not a conservative?

Is it really "all" conservatives you're talking about here? Or,were you making more of a general statement, understanding that it doesn't apply to each and every person who identifies as conservative, etc.?

[pErvinalia]

When one says that Jainism involves X, Y and Z, does that mean every Jain believes everything every other Jain believes? Of course not.

That's right, because you are referring to an ideology, not a group of people.

When one says MRAs are misogynistic, does that mean every single one of them is misogynistic?

Yes. Literally.

This is why it's pointless debating with you. Words literally don't mean the same thing to you that they do to the rest of the population. If you said "MRA's are misogynistic" you are literally by the rules of the English language saying that every MRA is misogynistic. I have no idea why you find that funny. You are categorically wrong. You are as wrong as if you were trying to argue that 1 + 1 = 3.