Why creationists can laugh at atheist feminists?

A forum to talk about other sites and things you've found in the jungle that is the internet.

Please take a moment to read the rationalia guidelines: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3449
Post Reply
User avatar
DaveDodo007
Posts: 2975
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 7:35 am
About me: When ever I behave as a man I am called sexist, It seems being a male is now illegal and nobody sent me the memo. Good job as I would have told them to fuck off.
Contact:

Re: Why creationists can laugh at atheist feminists?

Post by DaveDodo007 » Mon Oct 12, 2015 2:22 am

JimC wrote:
You make some valid points as to the apparent lack of a robust critique by mainstream feminists against the crazy minority (although I suspect that there has been some critique, but it has not been trumpeted by the mainstream media). Yes, the truly irrational man-haters need to be called to account - none here would argue in support of there extremist positions.
The whole point of this thread is to show all feminist are man haters, You missed the point about 'for argument sake' There is no radfem and normal feminism they are all man hating cunts. Like I keep saying where are all the the 'good feminist' tm objecting to the man hating comments, there simply aren't any. I have no time for the main stream media but the clickbaiting anything for views would love a good feminist fight. There are simply no feminist who disagree with their misandric views.
But this does not change the fact that you consistently paint the broad feminist movement largely in terms of this minority; mainstream feminism should not be immune to fair criticism, but not by attacking a straw-woman...
Yeah why would that be, I must have missed the men loving feminist so please link me to them. I really want some man loving from these 'we only care about equality feminists' even in the Internet age I can't find them. I weep for (so called septicism) Nowadays skepticism is only about stuff we disagree with, anything we agree with, we just listen and believe. I have seen nothing in this thread that shows me atheists/feminist are as immune from fantasy as any creationists, Hey I feel this so it must be true, how dare you laugh at creationists when a least they where indoctrinated at birth, what is your excuse for being gullible moron?
We should be MOST skeptical of ideas we like because we are sufficiently skeptical of ideas that we don't like. Penn Jillette.

User avatar
DaveDodo007
Posts: 2975
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 7:35 am
About me: When ever I behave as a man I am called sexist, It seems being a male is now illegal and nobody sent me the memo. Good job as I would have told them to fuck off.
Contact:

Re: Why creationists can laugh at atheist feminists?

Post by DaveDodo007 » Mon Oct 12, 2015 3:22 am

Jesus fucking lol.

“From liberation to censorship: Does modern feminism have a problem with free speech?” Both speakers were banned, are these fuckwits trying to put 'The Onion' a satirical online magazine out of business. :funny:

http://mancunion.com/2015/10/07/update- ... hip-event/

Of course you retarded feminists are going to support the banning of free speech as how else are you going to defend feminism? :lol:

It is so fucking funny laughing at retarded atheists who support feminism, what a bunch of ideological fucking nutjobs you are. :funny:
We should be MOST skeptical of ideas we like because we are sufficiently skeptical of ideas that we don't like. Penn Jillette.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74151
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Why creationists can laugh at atheist feminists?

Post by JimC » Mon Oct 12, 2015 3:35 am

You assume we support your ludicrously exaggerated version of what you think feminism is.

You assume incorrectly.
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
DaveDodo007
Posts: 2975
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 7:35 am
About me: When ever I behave as a man I am called sexist, It seems being a male is now illegal and nobody sent me the memo. Good job as I would have told them to fuck off.
Contact:

Re: Why creationists can laugh at atheist feminists?

Post by DaveDodo007 » Mon Oct 12, 2015 4:14 am

Yay, white feminism, you bitches aren't intersectionality enough. Stop oppressing proud WOC you racist fascist cunts. :funny:


http://imgur.com/ByS9hZ4

You boarded this train of the oppression olympics and there can be only one winner (loser) someone worst off than anyone else on the planet.

OK, serious question for you ratz scumbags, Did you really think you where supporting equal rights for women when you claimed to be feminists? I'm not being judgemental or anything (I am) but how butt fucking stupid and gullible do you need to be to be a feminist? trust me the answer is very and you all failed the test. Still keep living in the delusion that you are somehow superior to people who believe god/s exist because you are not.
We should be MOST skeptical of ideas we like because we are sufficiently skeptical of ideas that we don't like. Penn Jillette.

User avatar
DaveDodo007
Posts: 2975
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 7:35 am
About me: When ever I behave as a man I am called sexist, It seems being a male is now illegal and nobody sent me the memo. Good job as I would have told them to fuck off.
Contact:

Re: Why creationists can laugh at atheist feminists?

Post by DaveDodo007 » Mon Oct 12, 2015 4:51 am

JimC wrote:You assume we support your ludicrously exaggerated version of what you think feminism is.

You assume incorrectly.
I don't assume anything, I just keep posting the lunacy that is feminism, feel free to post feminists not being total man hating cunts. We live in the age of google so I can sit on my arse and find loads of misandric feminists, so while you have the same access as me, I have to ask where are the links to the good feminists? If you really think of yourself as a sceptic why isn't this giving you pause for thought. You can shout strawman all you want but sooner or later you are going to have to provide evidence of these non men hating feminists that I keep hearing about. Don't you dare say look at me as you are on a obscure forum, where is this man hate being challenged in the main stream media.
We should be MOST skeptical of ideas we like because we are sufficiently skeptical of ideas that we don't like. Penn Jillette.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Why creationists can laugh at atheist feminists?

Post by Hermit » Mon Oct 12, 2015 7:56 am

DaveDodo007 wrote:Yay, white feminism, you bitches aren't intersectionality enough. Stop oppressing proud WOC you racist fascist cunts. :funny:


http://imgur.com/ByS9hZ4

You boarded this train of the oppression olympics and there can be only one winner (loser) someone worst off than anyone else on the planet.

OK, serious question for you ratz scumbags, Did you really think you where supporting equal rights for women when you claimed to be feminists? I'm not being judgemental or anything (I am) but how butt fucking stupid and gullible do you need to be to be a feminist? trust me the answer is very and you all failed the test. Still keep living in the delusion that you are somehow superior to people who believe god/s exist because you are not.
:drinktype:
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 39938
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Why creationists can laugh at atheist feminists?

Post by Brian Peacock » Mon Oct 12, 2015 8:53 pm

DaveDodo007 wrote:The whole point of this thread is to show all feminist are man haters,
Image
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 39938
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Why creationists can laugh at atheist feminists?

Post by Brian Peacock » Mon Oct 12, 2015 11:23 pm

While I was watching the rugger the other day my daughter volunteered the opinion that the world cup teams should be mixed - it was the 'World Cup' after all, so it should have everybody in the world taking part, half of which are women. I pointed out that the physical nature of the game probably precluded men and women matching each other in contact situations, which she admitted, but then she went on to say that football (soccer) was basically a non-contact sport, and cricket, and golf, darts, snooker, cycling, rowing, and a few others. She also said that things like the shooting, archery were skills of co-ordination not strength, and then listed a few more; gymnastics, figure skating, fencing, and some others. Turns out that while I was in front of the telly she'd been talking on facebook with some of her friends whose dad's had also been swearing at the television. I must admit that I couldn't come up with a reason why most of the sports she mentioned couldn't or shouldn't be made up of mixed teams. She's 16. Does that make her a man-hating feminist Dave?
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Why creationists can laugh at atheist feminists?

Post by Forty Two » Tue Oct 13, 2015 1:31 pm

JimC wrote:
DaveDodo007 wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:Generalising from the particular much?
What type of answer is that? Any true activist movement wouldn't alienate 50% of the world's population if it wanted traction. I'm obviously happy feminism is treading water but you seem to be unconcerned by this fact. If you really believed feminism was a way to counter oppression against women you have a funny way of showing it. It looks like you just adopted the label as a form of virtue signalling (the whole 'good without god' bollocks) rather than you know doing any activism for the cause. You are not some hipster type goony beard are you because this looks like 'airport law' rite large.
You've missed his point. As many have pointed out before, you are generalising from one, narrow and rather extreme group of feminists to a much larger, general movement that simply does not include the over-the-top positions of the extreme minority.
This, I think, begs the question.

Formulating this another way:

Is the majority of feminism today a group of people who just advocate equal rights for women, or is the majority of today a group of people who advocate for more than that and harbor the "narrow, extreme" views referred to?

I.e. -- are those views being discussed really "narrow, extreme" feminism, or are they now more the norm.

If one looks at the feminists that grew out of the Skeptic movement, the prominent ones, we see Anita Sarkeesian (everything sexist, and you have to point it ALL out), Jessica Valenti (male tears - kill all men), the Skepchicks (Atheism+ on steroids), Laurie Penny, Bahar Mustafa (women can't be sexist against men, and minorities can't be racist).

Jessica Valenti writes for the Guardian (not a silly publication...) -- and, yet she thinks feminism means -- "We need to move beyond the stigma of “that time of the month”—women’s feminine hygiene products should be free for all, all the time." Is this stupidity the norm, or extreme?

She says, "denying that women are a victimized class is simply wrong. What else would you call a segment of the population who are systematically discriminated against in school, work and politics?…" Yet, women are not at all discriminated against in school - they are discriminated IN THEIR FAVOR, and they aren't at all discriminated against at work as a class (for example, female engineers have a 2 to 1 advantage in getting hired than men for the same job with the same qualifications), and in "politics?" She claims that women are "discriminated against" in democracies where women make up more than 50% of the electorate but choose to vote for men more than women....

Is this stupidity the "norm" or is it"extreme"?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
DaveDodo007
Posts: 2975
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 7:35 am
About me: When ever I behave as a man I am called sexist, It seems being a male is now illegal and nobody sent me the memo. Good job as I would have told them to fuck off.
Contact:

Re: Why creationists can laugh at atheist feminists?

Post by DaveDodo007 » Wed Oct 14, 2015 10:00 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:While I was watching the rugger the other day my daughter volunteered the opinion that the world cup teams should be mixed - it was the 'World Cup' after all, so it should have everybody in the world taking part, half of which are women. I pointed out that the physical nature of the game probably precluded men and women matching each other in contact situations, which she admitted, but then she went on to say that football (soccer) was basically a non-contact sport, and cricket, and golf, darts, snooker, cycling, rowing, and a few others. She also said that things like the shooting, archery were skills of co-ordination not strength, and then listed a few more; gymnastics, figure skating, fencing, and some others. Turns out that while I was in front of the telly she'd been talking on facebook with some of her friends whose dad's had also been swearing at the television. I must admit that I couldn't come up with a reason why most of the sports she mentioned couldn't or shouldn't be made up of mixed teams. She's 16. Does that make her a man-hating feminist Dave?
No, it just means she doesn't understand body dimorphism aka biology and evolution especially human evolution. Women competing against men would be crushed even in sports that don't require physical strength. Boasting about this by men would be crass and pathetic, as it is just biology. Being the first women to climb everest or in space should be equally lauded even if hundreds of men have done it before because the challenge is greater for women. Having mixed teams would have the men covering for the women (through no fault of their own.) The same could be said for intellectual pursuits as men have 10% more brain power than women percentage wise even when they are the same size and body weight. Equal rights for everybody as nobody can argue with that but expecting equal outcome is anti-science and stupid.
We should be MOST skeptical of ideas we like because we are sufficiently skeptical of ideas that we don't like. Penn Jillette.

User avatar
DaveDodo007
Posts: 2975
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 7:35 am
About me: When ever I behave as a man I am called sexist, It seems being a male is now illegal and nobody sent me the memo. Good job as I would have told them to fuck off.
Contact:

Re: Why creationists can laugh at atheist feminists?

Post by DaveDodo007 » Wed Oct 14, 2015 10:07 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
DaveDodo007 wrote:The whole point of this thread is to show all feminist are man haters,
Image
Lol, how is an ad hominem and shaming tactic wrong when the religious do it (you don't believe in god because you want to sin) but right when you try and defend your ideology. It looks like a godless religion to me or more like a cult.
We should be MOST skeptical of ideas we like because we are sufficiently skeptical of ideas that we don't like. Penn Jillette.

User avatar
DaveDodo007
Posts: 2975
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 7:35 am
About me: When ever I behave as a man I am called sexist, It seems being a male is now illegal and nobody sent me the memo. Good job as I would have told them to fuck off.
Contact:

Re: Why creationists can laugh at atheist feminists?

Post by DaveDodo007 » Wed Oct 14, 2015 10:10 pm

Hermit wrote:
DaveDodo007 wrote:Yay, white feminism, you bitches aren't intersectionality enough. Stop oppressing proud WOC you racist fascist cunts. :funny:


http://imgur.com/ByS9hZ4

You boarded this train of the oppression olympics and there can be only one winner (loser) someone worst off than anyone else on the planet.

OK, serious question for you ratz scumbags, Did you really think you where supporting equal rights for women when you claimed to be feminists? I'm not being judgemental or anything (I am) but how butt fucking stupid and gullible do you need to be to be a feminist? trust me the answer is very and you all failed the test. Still keep living in the delusion that you are somehow superior to people who believe god/s exist because you are not.
:drinktype:
I don't remember drinking when I typed that but if your sober ass can refute it, please do. I need a good laugh.
We should be MOST skeptical of ideas we like because we are sufficiently skeptical of ideas that we don't like. Penn Jillette.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 39938
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Why creationists can laugh at atheist feminists?

Post by Brian Peacock » Thu Oct 15, 2015 12:34 am

DaveDodo007 wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:While I was watching the rugger the other day my daughter volunteered the opinion that the world cup teams should be mixed - it was the 'World Cup' after all, so it should have everybody in the world taking part, half of which are women. I pointed out that the physical nature of the game probably precluded men and women matching each other in contact situations, which she admitted, but then she went on to say that football (soccer) was basically a non-contact sport, and cricket, and golf, darts, snooker, cycling, rowing, and a few others. She also said that things like the shooting, archery were skills of co-ordination not strength, and then listed a few more; gymnastics, figure skating, fencing, and some others. Turns out that while I was in front of the telly she'd been talking on facebook with some of her friends whose dad's had also been swearing at the television. I must admit that I couldn't come up with a reason why most of the sports she mentioned couldn't or shouldn't be made up of mixed teams. She's 16. Does that make her a man-hating feminist Dave?
No, it just means she doesn't understand body dimorphism aka biology and evolution especially human evolution. Women competing against men would be crushed even in sports that don't require physical strength. Boasting about this by men would be crass and pathetic, as it is just biology. Being the first women to climb everest or in space should be equally lauded even if hundreds of men have done it before because the challenge is greater for women. Having mixed teams would have the men covering for the women (through no fault of their own.) The same could be said for intellectual pursuits as men have 10% more brain power than women percentage wise even when they are the same size and body weight. Equal rights for everybody as nobody can argue with that but expecting equal outcome is anti-science and stupid.
OK. So men are just inherently better than women at everything, whether it requires physical strength or not? Men do have, should be granted, bragging rights in everything? Really?

Please substantiate the assertion that men are 10% clever than women.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
DaveDodo007
Posts: 2975
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 7:35 am
About me: When ever I behave as a man I am called sexist, It seems being a male is now illegal and nobody sent me the memo. Good job as I would have told them to fuck off.
Contact:

Re: Why creationists can laugh at atheist feminists?

Post by DaveDodo007 » Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:05 am

Brian Peacock wrote:
DaveDodo007 wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:While I was watching the rugger the other day my daughter volunteered the opinion that the world cup teams should be mixed - it was the 'World Cup' after all, so it should have everybody in the world taking part, half of which are women. I pointed out that the physical nature of the game probably precluded men and women matching each other in contact situations, which she admitted, but then she went on to say that football (soccer) was basically a non-contact sport, and cricket, and golf, darts, snooker, cycling, rowing, and a few others. She also said that things like the shooting, archery were skills of co-ordination not strength, and then listed a few more; gymnastics, figure skating, fencing, and some others. Turns out that while I was in front of the telly she'd been talking on facebook with some of her friends whose dad's had also been swearing at the television. I must admit that I couldn't come up with a reason why most of the sports she mentioned couldn't or shouldn't be made up of mixed teams. She's 16. Does that make her a man-hating feminist Dave?
No, it just means she doesn't understand body dimorphism aka biology and evolution especially human evolution. Women competing against men would be crushed even in sports that don't require physical strength. Boasting about this by men would be crass and pathetic, as it is just biology. Being the first women to climb everest or in space should be equally lauded even if hundreds of men have done it before because the challenge is greater for women. Having mixed teams would have the men covering for the women (through no fault of their own.) The same could be said for intellectual pursuits as men have 10% more brain power than women percentage wise even when they are the same size and body weight. Equal rights for everybody as nobody can argue with that but expecting equal outcome is anti-science and stupid.

OK. So men are just inherently better than women at everything, whether it requires physical strength or not? Men do have, should be granted, bragging rights in everything? Really?

Please substantiate the assertion that men are 10% clever than women.
Did you even read what I said, bragging rights would be hollow as taking credit for biology would be pathetic. I also said men have 10% bigger brains than women which they do, check any science textbook, if you want to believe that the genders are a social construct I have a bridge to sell you. That doesn't mean that men would be 10% more intelligent than women, Though the average man would be more intelligent than the average women. This doesn't take into account that women on average are better in social situations and language skills. Feel free to scoop out 10% of your brain and see if it makes a difference though given you are a ideologue you are not the best test subject for this experiment and for this study. You stopped thinking long ago and now critical theory is your lord and saviour How very atheist of you.
We should be MOST skeptical of ideas we like because we are sufficiently skeptical of ideas that we don't like. Penn Jillette.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 39938
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Why creationists can laugh at atheist feminists?

Post by Brian Peacock » Thu Oct 15, 2015 8:05 am

You boast that women competing against men would be crushed even in sports that don't require physical strength, but suggest that boasting would be bad form because it's not men's fault that they're better at every and any sport than a woman can ever be - it's evolution that just makes teh mens teh bestest at everything. Not boasting while boasting much?

You're failure to support your assertion that men 10% more brainy than women has been noted.

Oh, and...
Brian Peacock wrote:
DaveDodo007 wrote:The whole point of this thread is to show all feminist are man haters,
Image
... isn't an ad hom or a shaming :violin: it's ridicule in the face of your continuing fallacious generalisations.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests