Women on top

[rainbow]

Of course, I still know how many examples you can all easily think of...

Yes light aeroplanes and steel drums.

We are so lucky to have you around to point that out.

...so what is your conclusion?

[rainbow]

Why does this point bring you such satisfaction?

Tossers toss, it is what they do.
Tautology, you see?

[Forty Two]

And, you of course, snip the post, conveniently editing out to dishonestly change the meaning:

Here is what I said -

Just take the first link you posted. It's me RESPONDING to Sean's tone policing. He's saying that the "OP is shitty" and therefore it's o.k. to be shitty to and personally attack Cunt. My opposition to that, and my pointing out that it's not Cunt but Sean and others - like you - who are not discussing the topic civilly (because they're discussing Cunt's alleged motive, not the topic itself, and personally attacking Cunt).

Only you could take my argument against your and Sean's derail into Cunt's intent, and personal attacks against Cunt, to be "tone policing."

If I were tone policing, I'd be saying that your discussion of the topic at hand was not done with the proper niceties and in the right tone of voice. I'm not doing that. I'm telling you to shut the fuck up for once - for once - about what you think someone's motive is and and just discuss or argue about the fucking topic. That's not tone policing - that's just asking you to stop personally attacking people, which is what you do on so many threads.

And, of course, the "motive" you asserted was to call Cunt a "bigot." That's you doing that. You're doing the policing. You're trying to shut down the thread. You're the one not addressing the topic at hand, preferring to call people bigots and otherwise whinge on about the evil motive and intent you imagine them to have.

Dude, surely even you can see this is either a red-herring or a tu quoque. Whether i'm a tone policer or not is absolutely unrelated to the question of whether you are one. This is basic logic.

Sure, but you are one. I'm not, except when you personally attack, namecall, insult, and particularly when you do so to derail threads that you don't like. I've said that dozens of times now, and all your attempts to twist this into some argument that I've merely tone policed is ridiculous. Look, a lot of what you do does have a an awful tone. You're an awful, awful person, you're a liar, you're dim, and you are insulting, and you not only are these things but you revel in being them -- you're the kind of person who brags about abusing other people, flat out, and in the past you've bragged about trolling, and you said it was part of your mission to troll people and drive them off the boards you participate in. That's you. Yes, your "tone" is miserable, and what's worse, you designate and appoint yourself as a forum and thread policeman, who along with a couple others think it's your job to "get shitty with" people who you think are undesirable because of posts you think are shitty or inappropriate or sexist or whatever.

However, I've been quite clear that is not your general rudeness, your awful personality, and the miserable way you treat people that is the problem. The problem, as I've been quite clear to point out, is when you are not only that but also personally attacking, insulting, namecalling, and otherwise violating the rules in doing so. I wouldn't have much of a problem if you were someone who wrote on topic arguments in response to Cunt, but did so in a sarcastic or rude tone. The meanness, and incivility, however, that you engage in when you respond to Cunt, though, is almost invariably involving personal attacks, insults, and namecalling.

You then dishonestly portray your false representation of his arguments, your namecalling of him as a bigot and other personal attacks, etc., as some sort of honest response to the substance of what he's posting. Then when I say, can you stop it? You claim that that I'm tone policing your arguments, because you pretend that your abuse of Cunt is no different than being a bit rude in tone in your on-topic reply.

No, pErvin - you call people names. You attack the person and not the argument. You insult people. You abuse them, and you troll them, and you brag about doing it. That's the "tone" I want you to shove up your fucking ass. That's the "meannness" and "incivility" I want you to stop. If that rule-breaking is "tone policing" to you, then so be it.

[pErvinalia]

Why does this point bring you such satisfaction?

Tossers toss, it is what they do.
Tautology, you see?

No, you're wrong, rainbow. What this shows is that his intentions were innocent. He was really just curious. He's just pointing out to us that his curiosity has been satisfied and we should stop trying to find examples. Entirely honest, is Cunt.

[Forty Two]

Of what relevance is Cunt's intention in posting the OP? Why is it important for you to know that intention or motive? What's your motive and intention for making that inquiry? If he were to admit that he posted it in order to help prove to himself the hypothesis that women are, across the board, almost always worse than men at sports, what would that admitted motive and intent mean to you? Why do you need to know?

[pErvinalia]

This has all been explained to you and/or cunt by multiple people multiple times. And even if I did explain again, you'd just read something altogether alien in what was said and then spend 27 pages refusing to admit you got it wrong. No thanks.

[Cunt]

Yet again, why is this so important to you? You seem to relish rubbing this point in our faces. Why does this point bring you such satisfaction?

I guess because with SO much attention you are paying to 'what I must be thinking' or some other side-topic, you haven't paid any attention to the actual topic.

So the topic of my motives is of such deep interest? I have given my answers as to why I was interested, and what I will use the information for. It's not my fault if you don't like the answers.

Honestly I don't like the answers I got here. (dressage and endurance swim)

I'll use them, and be satisfied, because your motives in refusing to answer are just a funny aside to me - they don't have any relevance to the question.

It is rather enlightening about your character though...so intent to participate, yet so intent to be dismissive of the thread.

why

Because it is against feminist doctrine to admit there are serious differences in physical or cognitive ability between the sexes. I mean, it's ok to say that women are superior in any number of ways, but to find an answer which conflicts with current dogma is 'wrongspeak'.

[Forty Two]

This has all been explained to you and/or cunt by multiple people multiple times. And even if I did explain again, you'd just read something altogether alien in what was said and then spend 27 pages refusing to admit you got it wrong. No thanks.

LOL. riiiiiiiiggghhht....

Hey, Cunt, did pErvinalia explain the answers to my questions multiple times? Did someone else? I don't see those explanations.

Certainly, pErvin, if you think you did make those explanations, they were not "cogent." So, I hereby demand that you "clarify."

[pErvinalia]

It is rather enlightening about your character though...

Again, only you seem to find this a surprise. My character is well known. And a large part of it is to punish trolling and dishonesty.

why

Because it is against feminist doctrine to admit there are serious differences in physical or cognitive ability between the sexes. I mean, it's ok to say that women are superior in any number of ways, but to find an answer which conflicts with current dogma is 'wrongspeak'.

You spend all these pages refusing to admit that this is actually the reason why you posted this topic, and make up some bullshit about giving your daughters role models or some shit, and then come out 79 pages later and actually admit what it was that we thought it was all along. It was both a giant strawman (the physical aspect) directed at us, who you view as proxies for extreme feminists and social justice warriors, and bigoted by asserting that women are essentially stupid (I think you even rhetorically, by association, tarred them as little better than disabled people). THOSE are the reasons why you are so gleeful that we couldn't provide enough examples. Of course, 42 will equivocate on behalf of you here, but I'll be ignoring that. I should ignore your trolling that will follow, and indeed I might try extra hard to do that.

[pErvinalia]

So, I hereby demand that you "clarify."

I hereby demand that you suck Cunt's cock (as oxymoronic as that sounds).

[Cunt]

It is rather enlightening about your character though...

Again, only you seem to find this a surprise. My character is well known. And a large part of it is to punish trolling and dishonesty.

why

Because it is against feminist doctrine to admit there are serious differences in physical or cognitive ability between the sexes. I mean, it's ok to say that women are superior in any number of ways, but to find an answer which conflicts with current dogma is 'wrongspeak'.

You spend all these pages refusing to admit that this is actually the reason why you posted this topic, and make up some bullshit about giving your daughters role models or some shit, and then come out 79 pages later and actually admit what it was that we thought it was all along. It was both a giant strawman (the physical aspect) directed at us, who you view as proxies for extreme feminists and social justice warriors, and bigoted by asserting that women are essentially stupid (I think you even rhetorically, by association, tarred them as little better than disabled people). THOSE are the reasons why you are so gleeful that we couldn't provide enough examples. Of course, 42 will equivocate on behalf of you here, but I'll be ignoring that. I should ignore your trolling that will follow, and indeed I might try extra hard to do that.

You cling to anything that confirms your ideas, and reject anything that doesn't.

Not at all surprising.

[Forty Two]

It is rather enlightening about your character though...

Again, only you seem to find this a surprise. My character is well known. And a large part of it is to punish what I think is trolling and dishonesty, but which really is just other people creating threads that rub me the wrong way, by means of trolling and dishonest posts.

why

Because it is against feminist doctrine to admit there are serious differences in physical or cognitive ability between the sexes. I mean, it's ok to say that women are superior in any number of ways, but to find an answer which conflicts with current dogma is 'wrongspeak'.

You spend all these pages refusing to admit that this is actually the reason why you posted this topic, and make up some bullshit about giving your daughters role models or some shit, and then come out 79 pages later and actually admit what it was that we thought it was all along.

"we?" There you go again.... just speak for yourself. And, he has not suggested that this was his motivation. He is saying that is why you are upset. Just because it would be against feminist orthodoxy doesn't mean that addressing the feminist orthodoxy was his reason for creating the thread. This is you, again, jumping to incorrect conclusions, and just inventing things out of what people actually say.

This creates a lot of the battles, because it's a big pattern with you. Someone posts X, so you pull a Kathy Neuman and recast what is said as something else. Then the person you're talking to says "hey, no, that's not what I said..." and then you sit there for page after page telling them that what they said must have meant what you recast their statement to mean. You know what they really mean, or what they must have meant. Then when people deny your recasted meaning, you call them liars and start your bullshit trolling and abuse. It happens over and over again, and everyone can see it.

It was both a giant strawman (the physical aspect) directed at us,

There you go again. What the fuck? Do you really not know what a strawman is? I've explained it to you many times, and posted links. A strawman is where someone takes your argument, misstates it, and then disproves the mistated argument, to claim victory over you. Cunt did not do that. Even if his motivation really was to demonstrate something regarding feminist orthodoxy, it doesn't mean his post was a "giant strawman" of you or a group you call "us." He did not say that you or some group of "us" held that view.

For the love of dog, can you please stop it with your dopey references to logical fallacies if you don't know what they are or how to use them? You're trying to sound smart, but it just shows that you're the opposite.

who you view as proxies for extreme feminists and social justice warriors,

He hasn't argued this. Your feeling that this is what he's doing doesn't mean he's doing this, and doesn't mean he's strawmanning you. Do you hold the views of extreme feminists or social justice warriors? If not, why not? Are they wrong? About what main things? You can feel free to clarify that.

and bigoted by asserting that women are essentially stupid (I think you even rhetorically, by association, tarred them as little better than disabled people).

You think this is what he said?

THOSE are the reasons why you are so gleeful that we couldn't provide enough examples. Of course, 42 will equivocate on behalf of you here, but I'll be ignoring that. I should ignore your trolling that will follow, and indeed I might try extra hard to do that.

It's not equivocation. Equivocation is the use of ambiguous language to avoid committing yourself. You know, pervin, that's what you do on almost any occasion you are asked to commit to a position. Your state some vague and ambigious comment and then you refuse to clarify or commit to a position.

I haven't equivocated here. I've pointed out quite clearly where you're wrong. Not only that, but you haven't the faintest idea how to use the concepts of strawman, equivocation, or any other logical fallacy.

[Cunt]

pErvinalia is the most coherent, clear and thoughtful feminist poster I know.

[Forty Two]

Strawman!

[Cunt]

I regret posting that. I think much more of JimC (who I think identifies as a feminist) than I do of pErvinalia...but it does give people something to misquote if they wish.