Why creationists can laugh at atheist feminists?

[pErvinalia]

Rantically.

[Forty Two]

The thing is he has a history of wanting certain speech shut down. So there's a pattern developing. Our interpretations are not necessarily wrong.

Whatever. This shit about "he has a history of..." is horse hockey.

Either accept what he said, or don't. He's explained it.

This "pattern developing" nonsense is totally Ratskep in nature.

Yes, because there's no such thing as context.

Of course there is, but if you're going to make an argument about a person's "history" being relevant to a point, then you're going to have to present the relevant history (or significant examples thereof). It's another common Ratskep tactic to just make a declaration about someone's "posting history" and when asked "what history are you referring to" -- just decline to present anything further.

it's quite convenient when you want to dismiss someone else's argument out of hand by just declaring them a persona non grata.

It's not my problem that you are unaware of the Dodo's history.

It's your job to make your argument and support it with facts. It's not anyone's problem that someone else doesn't know the facts supporting an argument. However, when you make an argument, it is your burden to present the proof. Just saying "he has a posting history" isn't saying much.

I no longer want to waste my time arguing with the disingenuous likes of you and Seth. If you don't accept my characterisation of Dodo, fine, I don't really care. I value your opinion on stuff at around about zero.

LOL, and of course here we go -- all i asked for was for you to support your own argument, and your response is "It's not my problem" and "I don't want to waste my time..." That's just the response of the typical Creationist or AtheismPlus devotee.

I'm disingenuous? Feel free to support that claim.

[JimC]

Ah, but aren't you're just putting you views out there, Socratically, for the interested lurkers rEv?

The lurkers can get Hemlocked!

[pErvinalia]

Whatever. This shit about "he has a history of..." is horse hockey.

Either accept what he said, or don't. He's explained it.

This "pattern developing" nonsense is totally Ratskep in nature.

Yes, because there's no such thing as context.

Of course there is, but if you're going to make an argument about a person's "history" being relevant to a point, then you're going to have to present the relevant history (or significant examples thereof). It's another common Ratskep tactic to just make a declaration about someone's "posting history" and when asked "what history are you referring to" -- just decline to present anything further.

it's quite convenient when you want to dismiss someone else's argument out of hand by just declaring them a persona non grata.

It's not my problem that you are unaware of the Dodo's history.

It's your job to make your argument and support it with facts. It's not anyone's problem that someone else doesn't know the facts supporting an argument. However, when you make an argument, it is your burden to present the proof. Just saying "he has a posting history" isn't saying much.

I no longer want to waste my time arguing with the disingenuous likes of you and Seth. If you don't accept my characterisation of Dodo, fine, I don't really care. I value your opinion on stuff at around about zero.

LOL, and of course here we go -- all i asked for was for you to support your own argument, and your response is "It's not my problem" and "I don't want to waste my time..." That's just the response of the typical Creationist or AtheismPlus devotee.

I'm disingenuous? Feel free to support that claim.

I and others already have. The problem is that you don't pay attention to what's going on. Do I now have to provide evidence that you don't pay attention? This is a fun game.

[Brian Peacock]

Hey, someone at ratskep said something and then got dog pilloried on the whipping post of a circle jerk. Pictures at eleven.

[pErvinalia]

Feminazi PC brigade at it again (actually, I'm being serious).

Hungarian journalist slammed for 'seven types of blackface'

Photographer transposed her face over portraits of African women ‘to draw attention to their plight’

untitled (16).jpg (167.73 KiB) Viewed 2226 times

[JimC]

It probably could be described as naively culturally insensitive, but too minor to be criticised excessively, except perhaps by members of the tribes in question...

[Hermit]

Narcissist gets upset that her work has been criticised, packs up tripod, closes photoshop and does a big time flounce.

[pErvinalia]

She's raising awareness of them. Not denigrating them. As you say, if someone from the tribes in question was offended, fair enough. But they aren't as far as I know.

[JimC]

She's raising awareness of them. Not denigrating them. As you say, if someone from the tribes in question was offended, fair enough. But they aren't as far as I know.

There was a quote from a Turkana woman in the article you showed as a link saying that she should mind her own business...

[pErvinalia]

Narcissist gets upset that her work has been criticised, packs up tripod, closes photoshop and does a big time flounce.

"Narcissist"? Perhaps. But it's art for a purpose. And technically speaking it is good art. I know technical details aren't usually a measure of good art, but I think most art is shit, so I'm allowed to like the technical aspects of some art.

[pErvinalia]

She's raising awareness of them. Not denigrating them. As you say, if someone from the tribes in question was offended, fair enough. But they aren't as far as I know.

There was a quote from a Turkana woman in the article you showed as a link saying that she should mind her own business...

"Claims to be a Turkana woman"...

[Hermit]

But it's art for a purpose.

Most critics would probably acknowledge that.

[pErvinalia]

Art for a social purpose, then. I like teh social porpoises.

[Brian Peacock]

What? A woman highlighting the plight of women in Africa when she should be knitting, doing the dishes, and thinking about kittens? What is the world coming to?