Why creationists can laugh at atheist feminists?

[Forty Two]

A person's sexuality can be public, regardless of their orientation or gender, etc. I.e. -- there should be equal treatment under the law as to what conduct in public is acceptable. If kissing or hand holding in public is allowed, then the genders/sexes of the participants ought to be meaningless.

Fair enough. If men can go about topless, then it makes perfect sense women can as well.

Well, to me, I would definitely not have a law against public nudity, and toplessness. There is, however, a difference between male and female chests. Men don't have mammary glands, and women's breasts tend to be more pronounced, larger nipples, etc. The difference, to me, doesn't matter. I don't think there is any good reason to have laws about someone showing her tits. Even public nudity banning is a pointless exercise. On the beach and at public pools, people can wear speedos and bikinis that show everything just about. Women can shave their pubes and wear something that just barely covers their vulva, and both butt cheeks can be fully exposed with a small strip of fabric covering only the crack of her ass. That's fine with me.

Frankly, women don't really want to go around topless anyway. Look at the cities that allow it. Toronto? New York City? Etc. Do women go topless? No. Mainly for the same reason men rarely go around topless. Nobody really wants to be topless. So, just make it legal, and ignore the few folks who do it, and the problem goes away.

Men "going about topless" is not that common. It is on the beach. But, in daily life, men normally have shirts. The occasional jogger or bike rider aside, it's a rarity. If you make it legal for women to be topless, you aren't going to have women showing up at work topless, or going topless to the supermarket or the coffee shop. Custom and culture govern what people wear. Women might go topless on the beach, but even there it wouldn't be all that common, and who cares anyway? What they wear now can't really be called a top. Women often wear bikinis that cover much less than their brassieres. They walk around with 3/4 of their tits out already.

I mean men's breasts are just as erogenous as women's - physiologically speaking. If it's ok for a man to fondle and squeeze his girls tits on a park bench while soul kissing her and grabbing her ass then it's ok for two guys to do the same. How about two guys and a girl? Or three guys? Two girls? Three girls? hmm..

I am not sure it's generally "ok" for a man to fondle and squeeze a girl's tits on a park bench. But, if the point is equal treatment, then if we assume it is legal for a man and a woman to fondle on a park bench, then it should be legal for men/men, girl/girl, or whatever.

Whether it's "ok" is a value judgment made by each individual. I don't think it's "ok" to make out in public. i think people should get a room -- gay, straight, or whatever. But, that's just me. They don't have to listen to me, but likewise I don't have to like what other people do.

[Forty Two]

Red herring is not the same thing as an analogy. Asserting that they are is a red herring.

Nobody said red herring was the same thing as an analogy, because it isn't, and I never asserted that they were the same.

An analogy is a comparison of two things. A red herring is a misleading or distracting point.

The refrain that so and so doesn't speak for "the whole" is a red herring, not an analogy. It's a red herring because nobody ever speaks for the whole, so it's a point that is offered to refute something which doesn't have any relation to the issue at all. It's just a misleading statement diverting the conversation to a discussion of what views represent or speak for all of feminism, when in fact there are no or almost no views that speak for or represent all of feminism.

[Jason]

Are you an undergrad student?

[Forty Two]

Are you an undergrad student?

No, why?

I doubt I'd be allowed to graduate. Were I in college today, my first year at college would have likely resulted in my being picketed and petitioned for removal from the dormitory by all the precious flowers and snowflakes being offended by my lack of concern for their fee-fees.

When I started college, most of us drove ourselves there with a beat up old car jammed with clothes packed in plastic bags and old suitcases. We moved ourselves into the dorms and apartments, and made our own way. Now, parents show up with their 18 year old adult toddlers, buy them their groceries, make their beds, hang their clothes, and meet their little friends....

[Jason]

You just remind me of the undergrads of 2007.. with their love of logical fallacies.

[Forty Two]

You just remind me of the undergrads of 2007.. with their love of logical fallacies.

I think it's weird that you think using the term "red herring" indicates a "love of logical fallacies." The term red herring is a common turn of phrase which basically means that someone has made an irrelevant point that serves only to distract.

Again - who gives a flying fuck if a person "represents" or "speaks for" all of feminism or not. I can't think of any "ism" which has a spokesperson or a view that is accepted by everyone. I'm sure there are some that at least come close, like, if you're a racist you very probably believe in the superiority of one or more races over others. But, even that is probably not an accepted principle by "every" racist. Some might say that they aren't advocating superiority, but merely "difference." I doubt there are very many principles of an ism that are held by every single adherent.

[Jason]

You just remind me of the undergrads of 2007.. with their love of logical fallacies.

and love of scare quotes.

Again - who gives a flying fuck if a person "represents" or "speaks for" all of feminism or not. I can't think of any "ism" which has a spokesperson or a view that is accepted by everyone. I'm sure there are some that at least come close, like, if you're a racist you very probably believe in the superiority of one or more races over others. But, even that is probably not an accepted principle by "every" racist. Some might say that they aren't advocating superiority, but merely "difference." I doubt there are very many principles of an ism that are held by every single adherent.

You'd have to get DaveDodo007 back to answer that. He's the one tarring all of feminism with a single brushstroke, not us good Ratzians. I think I scared him away by being patient and genuine with him though.

[Hermit]

Public orgies.. Maybe have adults-only parks where people are free to frolic and fuck anyone and everyone. Talk politics, science, and religion while they're at it.

Vondel park Amsterdam.

Never came through.

Starting in September 2008, adults were planned to be legally allowed to have sex in the park, as long as they "take their garbage with them afterwards and never have intercourse near the playground. The sex must be limited to the evening hours and night.", in the words of current Amsterdam Alderman Paul Van Grieken. However, Amsterdam Police announced that they would not in fact tolerate this as the law required them to prevent it.

[Scott1328]

You'd have to get DaveDodo007 back to answer that. He's the one tarring all of feminism with a single brushstroke, not us good Ratzians. I think I scared him away by being patient and genuine with him though.

How does one become a Ratzian, if not by creating an account and posting on occasion? I am pretty sure getting banned at RatSkep is not a requirement for deserving the moniker?

[Forty Two]

You just remind me of the undergrads of 2007.. with their love of logical fallacies.

and love of scare quotes.

Again - who gives a flying fuck if a person "represents" or "speaks for" all of feminism or not. I can't think of any "ism" which has a spokesperson or a view that is accepted by everyone. I'm sure there are some that at least come close, like, if you're a racist you very probably believe in the superiority of one or more races over others. But, even that is probably not an accepted principle by "every" racist. Some might say that they aren't advocating superiority, but merely "difference." I doubt there are very many principles of an ism that are held by every single adherent.

You'd have to get DaveDodo007 back to answer that. He's the one tarring all of feminism with a single brushstroke, not us good Ratzians. I think I scared him away by being patient and genuine with him though.

It doesn't seem as if DaveDodo007 is tarring feminism with a single brushstroke. He appears to be addressing the factions of feminism who hold the loopy beliefs he's identifying. Those factions do, in fact exist, and they certainly do not appear to be just a small, extreme minority of feminists.

Let's not forget that "feminists" are already a small minority. Most men and women do not identify themselves as feminists. I think it's like 38% of women and 18% of men. So, 62% of women don't call themselves feminists. Of that 38% of women and 18% of men, what percentage hold some of the loopy views pointed out by DaveDodo? Some people here seem to say that it has to be only a small minority of those identifying as feminists. But, is it? These views are not uncommon among femniists who are published an activist, that's for sure.

[Forty Two]

You'd have to get DaveDodo007 back to answer that. He's the one tarring all of feminism with a single brushstroke, not us good Ratzians. I think I scared him away by being patient and genuine with him though.

How does one become a Ratzian, if not by creating an account and posting on occasion? I am pretty sure getting banned at RatSkep is not a requirement for deserving the moniker?

No True Ratzian?

[Jason]

Exactly

[Hermit]

It doesn't seem as if DaveDodo007 is tarring feminism with a single brushstroke. He appears to be addressing the factions of feminism who hold the loopy beliefs he's identifying.

What gave you that impression?

feminists are man hating cunts

the feminist agenda is total bullshit and call them out on it.

Feminists, my allies what a fucking joke, they are man hating cunts or man hating enablers which just makes them as bad really.

feminist are just a bunch of man hating cunts so fuck them and their supporters.

I provide loads of evidence that feminists hate men

What is irrational is lumping all feminists together.

I'm providing evidence of their man hate and anyone who doesn't have a problem with their man hate is an enabler.

That's from skimming through the first nine pages. I couldn't be bothered racing through the next 22.

[Jason]

Oops I didn't read the comment of Forty Two above mine. Thanks Hermit.

[Jason]

It doesn't seem as if DaveDodo007 is tarring feminism with a single brushstroke.

I'm just going to cut you off right there. Yes he is. It's classic fallacy of composition for him - in our last exchange he freely admitted to labelling all feminists as transphobes because some are TERFs. I'm guessing you don't actually read the exchanges and have some outstanding anti-feminist views yourself.