Ireland says "Yes" to same-sex marriage

[Hermit]

Weird, the number of people complaining about ideologies while asserting that they themselves don't have one.

[Brian Peacock]

@@vote y claim is that feminism is a man hating cult and I will also add, directly antithetical to equal rights. I have given and will continue to give evidence of this claim. You on the other hand claimed I was cherry picking though you have not provided any evidence to back up your claim.@@

That's the argument from definition fallacy. E.G: "All anti-feminists are cunts. You're an anti-feminist. Therefore..."

See what I mean?

Not really as anti-feminists will be individuals who are against feminism. There will be no political, advocacy, social tenets that have to be adhered to when opposing an ideology. You can define members of an ideology because to be part of that ideology they have to have an inherent trait or why label yourself as such in the first place. Anti-ideologues have no such obligations.

So is supporting and/or advocating gender equality an ideology, or not, and isn't declaring feminism "a man hating cult" and ideology-defining 'inherent trait'? Additionally, your compositional fallacy here, that is, generalising from the particular, is found in the implicit assumption that self-declared feminists are advocate and ideal which is inherently and "directly antithetical to equal rights", even as the majority of self-declared feminists would, and do, support and advocate gender equality as being a rights issue.

It seems to me that your utterances on the matter of feminists have more to do with the fact that you do not consider women to be truly, inherently, the equals of men rather than representing any coherent and principled political outlook, citing, as you have previously, a fundamental and necessary distinction between women's' work and men's work, and the necessity for differential treatment and regard to be applied to individuals based on their gender.

Now before you haul yourself up onto your hind legs and start barking again, taking issue with you over this does not make me an ideologue nor mean that I think everyone is the essentially same in their particulars; that I am interested in legislating away differences between people and/or nominal groups. Individual identity is not something to be glibly blandished. Advocating gender equality, whether that's called feminism or not, is no more an exercise in ideological legislation than advocating employment equality for disabled people or advocating civil equality for a minority group is. It's a moral view which promotes a simply equalisation of opportunity and regard: "De chacun selon ses facultés, à chacun selon ses besoins" and all that.

[DaveDodo007]

@@vote y claim is that feminism is a man hating cult and I will also add, directly antithetical to equal rights. I have given and will continue to give evidence of this claim. You on the other hand claimed I was cherry picking though you have not provided any evidence to back up your claim.@@

That's the argument from definition fallacy. E.G: "All anti-feminists are cunts. You're an anti-feminist. Therefore..."

See what I mean?

Not really as anti-feminists will be individuals who are against feminism. There will be no political, advocacy, social tenets that have to be adhered to when opposing an ideology. You can define members of an ideology because to be part of that ideology they have to have an inherent trait or why label yourself as such in the first place. Anti-ideologues have no such obligations.

So is supporting and/or advocating gender equality an ideology, or not, and isn't declaring feminism "a man hating cult" and ideology-defining 'inherent trait'? Additionally, your compositional fallacy here, that is, generalising from the particular, is found in the implicit assumption that self-declared feminists are advocate and ideal which is inherently and "directly antithetical to equal rights", even as the majority of self-declared feminists would, and do, support and advocate gender equality as being a rights issue.

Feminism does not own the concept of equality and they certainly don't practice it. They spend their time tilting at windmills like patriarchy and rape culture and other evidenceless social constructs.
Also it is not a problem when you are talking about the mainstream of a group. It would be wrong to say "Feminists believe rape culture is a myth," because that is not a mainstream feminist belief. It's not wrong to say "Feminists believe in rape culture." You don't need qualifiers when talking about the mainstream of ideological groups, because the qualifiers can always be assumed because all ideological groups have some fringe of contrarians who believe reject the mainstream positions. For example, not every conservative is pro-life, but it's still entirely reasonable to discuss conservatives as being opposed to abortion. Demanding that such statements be qualified when you very well know that the universal qualifications apply is the very definition of being pedantic.
It's an annoying non-argument that accomplishes nothing, but is a excellent way of pretending you're arguing against an actual point. Your whole paragraph might as well be wearing a kilt, dancing the Highland fling whilst playing the bagpipes. Just because you have ring fenced your favourite cult doesn't mean other people aren't allowed to scrutinize it especially its toxic behaviour.

It seems to me that your utterances on the matter of feminists have more to do with the fact that you do not consider women to be truly, inherently, the equals of men rather than representing any coherent and principled political outlook, citing, as you have previously, a fundamental and necessary distinction between women's' work and men's work, and the necessity for differential treatment and regard to be applied to individuals based on their gender.

Men and women are different. Their societal roles are different. This is true across all known civilizations as far back as we have records for. Strangely enough, those societies broke down male and female roles in very similar ways. Sure, there may be a 'coercive cultural elements' that reinforce these behaviours. But they're not arbitrary. Even further below them, there are instinctive imperatives at play. As well as basic biological differences. Our gender roles are written all over our bodies. No amount of 'progress' will stop most people reforming to type along with body dimorphism coming into play here. There is equal rights and equal opportunities as there should be though you are never going to get equal outcomes outside of a brutal Stalinist ideology and there will still be people more equal than others.

Now before you haul yourself up onto your hind legs and start barking again, taking issue with you over this does not make me an ideologue nor mean that I think everyone is the essentially same in their particulars; that I am interested in legislating away differences between people and/or nominal groups. Individual identity is not something to be glibly blandished. Advocating gender equality, whether that's called feminism or not,

Just remember that your definition is no more valid than the one used by other users; there is a radical, spiteful, cult-like majority of feminists, of which you give the veneer of respectability.
You are also not looking at the other side with an unbiased mind. Men are imprisoned more, sent off to die in war more, assaulted more, and separated from their children more (yet often paying the full monetary price of parenthood). And by 'more' I don't mean a few percent. I mean dramatically more. I would like to hear what rights men have that women don't. It's funny how feminist go quiet when asked this question or suddenly start pointing to third world countries.

is no more an exercise in ideological legislation than advocating employment equality for disabled people or advocating civil equality for a minority group is. It's a moral view which promotes a simply equalisation of opportunity and regard: "De chacun selon ses facultés, à chacun selon ses besoins" and all that.

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur. The disabled are a special case as they struggle just living day to day. The civil rights movement could point to discriminate laws that needed to be addressed so what's your point. Unless you can show me what rights men have that women don't. Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

[Animavore]

3 years ago this day we voted.

[JimC]

At least we in Oz finally and belatedly caught up with you...