Failed arguments from our COWARDLY CRITICS

Niggers want to test us? Bring your #2 pencils. Get your webcam, a dry pair of panties, and let's get it the fuck on! Also we interview hos.
Post Reply
User avatar
Info
Dean of Beatdowns
Posts: 10319
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:34 am
Contact:

Failed arguments from our COWARDLY CRITICS

Post by Info » Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:25 pm



Backup link
Cowardly pseudo-intellectual feminist "debate" vs. Traditional debate

The distinction is between two modes of debate. Traditional debate reflects rules of intellectual procedure associated with the Enlightenment, to which most of humanity's transformations, good and bad, these past few hundred years can be attributed, but traceable farther back to the ancient Greeks.

The second, temporally more recent mode of pseudo-intellectual debate, meaning the relativist, constructivist, anti-scientific mentality, the wholesale inversion of Enlightenment values, that has arisen since the political arm of the feminist movement in the 1960s.

Traditional debate

The following are ten key characteristics of traditional debate, what many professors and students even now consider the normal or standard way to think, study and argue:
  • "personal detachment from the issues under discussion," the separation of participants' personal identities from subjects of inquiry and topics of debate;
  • values on "confidence, originality, agonism, independence of thought, creativity, assertiveness, the mastery of one’s feelings, a thick skin and high tolerance for your own and others’ discomfort";
  • suited to a heterotopic space like a university class, scholarly journal, or session of a learned society conference, a place apart much like a playing field for sports events, where competitors engage in ritual combat before returning with a handshake to the realm of friendly, personal interaction;
  • illustrated by debate in the British House of Commons;
  • epitomized by the debates a century ago between socialist G. B. Shaw and distributist G. K. Chesterton;
  • playfulness is legitimate: one can play devil’s advocate, speak tongue in cheek, overstate and use hyperbole, the object being not to capture the truth in a single, balanced monologue, but to expose the strengths and weaknesses of various positions;
  • "scathing satire and sharp criticism" are also legitimate;
  • the best ideas are thought to emerge from mutual, merciless probing and attacking of arguments, with resultant exposure of blindspots in vision, cracks in theories, inconsistencies in logic;
  • participants are forced again and again to return to the drawing board and produce better arguments;
  • the truth is understood not to be located in any single voice, but to emerge from the conversation as a whole.
Pseudo-intellectual "debate"

Over the past half century, a competing mode of pseudo-intellectual debate has become steadily more entrenched in academe. The following are ten of its hallmarks:
  • "persons and positions are ordinarily closely related," with little insistence on keeping personal identity separate from the questions or issues under discussion;
  • "sensitivity, inclusivity, and inoffensiveness are key values";
  • priority on "cooperation, collaboration, quietness, sedentariness, empathy, equality, non-competitiveness, conformity, a communal focus";
  • "seems lacking in rationality and ideological challenge," in the eyes of proponents of modern debate;
  • tends to perceive the satire and criticism of modern debate as "vicious and personal attack, driven by a hateful animus";
  • is oriented to " the standard measures of grades, tests, and a closely defined curriculum";
  • lacking "means by which to negotiate or accommodate such intractable differences within its mode of conversation," it will "typically resort to the most fiercely antagonistic, demonizing, and personal attacks upon the opposition";
  • "will typically try, not to answer opponents with better arguments, but to silence them completely as ‘hateful’, ‘intolerant’, ‘bigoted’, ‘misogynistic’, ‘homophobic’, etc.";
  • has a more feminine flavor, as opposed to the more masculine flavor of intelligent debate;
  • results in "stale monologues" and contexts that "seldom produce strong thought, but rather tend to become echo chambers."
When competing perspectives collide

In today's culture wars, "offense-takers" and "offense trolls" use "human shields" and accusations of "hate speech" to silence opponents. "Lacking a high tolerance for difference and disagreement, sensitivity-driven debates will typically manifest a herding effect. Dissenting voices can be scapegoated or excluded and opponents will be sharply attacked." This is but another way of saying that proponents of the pseudo-intellectual mode of debate have a tendency to engage in herd mentality, popularity-based decisions/consensus.

Image

Michael Mason's elimination from Queen's

A senior historian named Michael Mason, retired from a career at Concordia University in Montreal, was living in Kingston and teaching part-time at Queen's, where students generally rated him an excellent teacher. He was giving a fall-term course on "Asia, Africa, and Latin America since 1945."

Barely two weeks into the term, a small number of students in the class complained that he had made "borderline racist comments." In addition, Mason's teaching assistants accused him of using "racist and sexist language." The department chair and other administrators sprang into action. Mason was summoned to meetings, threatened with suspension, informed that the chair might henceforth be sitting in on his class from time to time, and told that the grading scheme would need to be changed. The administrators judged that Mason had "failed to create a safe space" for students and thereby violated the university's "Educational Equity Policy." On his doctor's advice, Mason went on medical leave. In effect, he was forced out as instructor for the course, and that ended his teaching career at Queen's.

"Academic mobbing" is too fancy a term to place on it. Margaret Wente called it a "mugging" in her column in the Globe & Mail. The most fascinating thing about the attack on him is that he was not teaching anything especially contentious or provocative, just acquainting students with the historical record. He positioned himself, moreover, as opposed to racism, and eager to alert students to American racism in the postwar period. Mason's "offense," such as it was, was reading aloud in a lecture a passage from a book that quoted an American admiral calling the Japanese "little yellow sons of bitches." Similarly, quoting from an article in the Atlantic Monthly, Mason informed the students that a U.S. Senator had called the South Carolina Governor, a woman of Punjabi origin, a "fucking raghead." Mason did not himself indulge in any name-calling, instead just documented that certain American officials had done so. For this he was himself accused of making "borderline racist comments."

The charges of sexism against Mason were similarly tenuous. It was claimed that he had said female students should be mistresses. What he had said was that he wanted his students to become "masters and mistresses" of the course material. He had told the TAs that in his organization of the course, he would not actually have much work to assign them, joking that maybe he would have to ask them to wash his car. This was taken to be demeaning of women.

Mason, like most history professors of mature years, saw his course as an arena of modern debate. He was leftist enough to include American racism as a topic, but his priority was on communicating historical facts about that topic, not on the personal feelings or identities of his students. In the back of his mind he probably knew that if there were any students of Japanese origin in his class, they might wince at hearing the American admiral's term, "little yellow sons of bitches," but Mason assumed their skin would be thick enough to shrug off any feeling of discomfort. The name of the game, as he saw it, was to learn history.

Like generations of modern professors before him, Mason considered mastery of the subject the prime objective of his course. One can imagine his impish smile when, bending over backwards not to offend female students by sex-specific language, he uttered that phrase, "masters and mistresses." As for the joke about asking his TAs to wash his car, well, a joke is a joke. If Mason had seriously ordered them to take buckets of water to the parking lot after class and wash his car, they might legitimately object. How could they possibly object to a droll way of letting them know his demands on their time would be relatively few? Such is the traditional mode of debate Mason appeared to be practicing.

His accusers, by contrast, were engaged in the pseudo-intellectual mode of debate. They did not separate, as Mason did, the personal from the pedagogical. Preserving their self-esteem and making sure all students in the class were comfortable took on a higher priority than telling the truth. Their key values were "sensitivity, inclusivity, and inoffensiveness." Maybe one or another of the students was an "offense troll" on the lookout for hidden racism and sexism, eager to expose these vices as proof of personal self-righteousness.

In a letter defending Mason, one of his former students, Helen Mo, wrote that "Like most excellent teachers, Professor Mason used quotations, irony, and other rhetorical devices in his Socratic-style lectures." This is typical of the traditional mode of debate, wherein questions are always more important than answers. Pseudo-intellectual debate, by contrast, tends to be more lliteral, even leaden, and there is rarely much room for humour or whimsy. It is answers that count, even if they turn out to be "stale monologues" and "echo chambers." I would guess that the impishness in Mason's reference to "masters and mistresses" or to the washing of his car went right by the students who later complained. They expected him to conform to a "closely defined curriculum." He failed the test. They therefore came together in a menacing little herd and made an "antagonistic, demonizing, and personal" attack on Mason that ended his job at Queen's.

Three more examples

Dozens of academic mobbing cases over the past quarter-century show the same clash of modes of debate. In each of them, a professor teaching in a standard modern way was attacked by students or colleagues playing by a politically correct, feminist set of rules, living in an emotional, perpetually butthurt universe of narcissism. Here are just three examples:
  • At the University of Western Ontario in 1991, psychologist Heinz Klatt made the mistake of injecting humor into his class on child psychology. He called a student named Lucretia "Lucky Lucy." She found the epithet charming but four other students found it demeaning of women, and therefore charged Klatt with sexual harassment and creating a "negative psychological environment." Klatt spent the next two years in what he called "Kafkaland."
  • At the University of Michigan in 1992, statistician David Goldberg distributed in class a cartoon that poked fun at statisticians like him. Other handouts he distributed illustrated statistical techniques by applying them to actual data, and a few of these showed differences by race and sex. The upshot was that he was accused of racial and sexual harassment!
  • At a conference at Harvard University in 2005, president Lawrence Summers offered some tentative, carefully reasoned, empirically supported hypotheses about why women are underrepresented on science and engineering faculties. "Personal detachment from the issues under discussion" appeared to be impossible for one member of the audience, MIT biologist and full-time man-hating feminist cunt Nancy Hopkins, who spearheaded the campaign to hound Summers out of his position on grounds of sexism. Summers backtracked and grovelled, but the campaign won out.
Image :barfy:

One more example: Philippe Rushton (1943-2012)

Philippe Rushton was yet another mobbing target. Rushton had died two months earlier. The attack on Rushton began in 1989 and continued off and on for the rest of his life, even on the occasion of his death.

Rushton embodied traditional debate. Virtually all of the key characteristics listed above for this mode of debate applied to him, the main exception being literary devices like satire and humor. He knew better than to make jokes. Even if his priority had been on the empirical explanation of life in terms of cultural and historical factors, he might have gotten himself in trouble with the pseudo-intellectual left. But he made himself still more vulnerable, by making natural science his priority, and seeking explanation through biological and genetic factors, among them race and sex.

Rushton was unfailingly even-tempered, soft spoken, and polite, always willing to listen to opponents' arguments and respond cooly and rationally, citing evidence. It was as if he took Kipling's famous poem as a script for his own scholarly life: "If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you, If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, But make allowance for their doubting too...."

Rushton was among the most cited psychologists in the world. In a front-page article in the Ottawa Citizen in 2005, Andrew Duffy described him as the most famous university professor in Canada (he might have said infamous). Apart from all else, Rushton's prominence justifies the most rigorous effort to explain why the fierce campaign against him arose, why the mass protests, police investigation, demands that he be fired, restrictions on his teaching and research, incessant denunciations in the press, and collegial shunning.

How a mobbing episode plays out depends not just on the modes of debate of target and mobbers, but on which mode of debate is more firmly institutionalized in university policies and relevant legislation. What John Furedy called "velvet totalitarianism" in a 1997 article depends not just on numerous academics subscribing to the postmodern mode of debate, but on the enforcement of its values and priorities by administrative authority, acting on the basis of written rules. In Mason's case at Queen's, it mattered that the university had an "Educational Equity Policy" that seemed to support the pseudo-intellectual priority on sensitivity and inoffensiveness. When the faculty handbook includes provisions that put the comfort of students ahead of intellectual rigour and freedom of speech, administrators need not themselves be caught up in a campaign to oust a targeted professor; all they have to do is behave like faithful bureaucrats and follow the faculty handbook. That is why the organization called FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, has pursued a long succession of court cases aimed at forcing colleges and universities to abandon politically correct, feminist speech codes and anti-harassment policies that infringe on freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. FIRE's objective is to protect modern debate in higher education by ensuring that it has institutional support.

Why/how these pseudo-intellectual cowards duck LIVE debating Manhood 101
Image



Here's a sample argument presented for debate:
Controversial news item: Russia moves to enact anti-gay law nationwide

Our response: Gays are just as intolerant as the russian parliament.

While I don't agree with Russia's methods, their reasoning is at least rational in some respects, unlike the butthurt pseudo-intellectuals that punish you for even daring to express dissenting views. I mean, this is really a case of the pot calling the kettle black when gays accuse russia of being 'intolerant'. The politically correct agenda of homosexuality epitomizes intolerance and suppression.

On one hand, we know that homosexuality is an aberration just like alcoholism or any other damaging tendency. But of course, in this politically correct climate, you can't even have the discussion/debate because the politically correct way of doing things is always to SILENCE OPPOSITION. This only means that people fear hearing the truth because in this age, we care more about feelings than facts. We value self-esteem over telling the truth.

So while I don't agree with russia's strategy, I at least agree with their stand against the advocation of homosexual propaganda. Just like I don't agree that we should ban (or even could ban) alcoholism, that doesn't mean we should start advocating it or embracing it as a social norm. That is complete bullshit and goes beyond the boundaries of rational thought.

Of course, we invite any of you pseudo-intellectual cowards to LIVE debate us on this issue because unlike you politically correct cowards, we don't fear having our views publicly scrutinized.
Response from our politically correct, feminist opponents:
I have never met a single alcoholic that enjoys being an alcoholic. I've met plenty of gay guys who enjoy being gay and have perfectly wonderful lives. You may view it as an "aberration", but it's not any different from people who enjoy eating asparagus more than almonds.
This coward of course REFUSED to live debate his/her delusional views.
You seem like you must be sexually attracted to other skinheads like yourself.
This coward of course REFUSED to live debate his/her delusional views.
I can't tell if you're serious.
This coward of course REFUSED to live debate his/her delusional views.
Fuck you, man.
This coward of course REFUSED to live debate his/her delusional views.
Get that shit out of here. Now.
This coward of course REFUSED to live debate his/her delusional views.
no. censored for being plain wrong. Homosexuality is demonstrably NOT an aberration. It has occurred throughout history across all cultures and societies and in significant numbers. Think of it what you will, it is a naturally occuring characteristic for a great number of individuals. You wrote this post wanting to be downvoted so you could claim to be persecuted by "cowards". You claim to be a victim of political correctness but your views are just plain wrong, its not a matter of opinion.
This coward of course REFUSED to live debate his/her delusional views.
Dude...
This coward of course REFUSED to live debate his/her delusional views.
nobody will debate me!' quoth the pigeon shitting on the chess board.
This coward of course REFUSED to live debate his/her delusional views.
Typical Russian faggot.
This coward of course REFUSED to live debate his/her delusional views.
No, we don't. We know that your views are absolutely idiotic, however.
This coward of course REFUSED to live debate his/her delusional views.
Alcoholism? Seriously? What, you think they're addicted to cock? You're either a troll or you have no idea what sexuality is.
This coward of course REFUSED to live debate his/her delusional views.
Personally I'd like to see a load of guys like you having a mass debate on the subject live over the internet.
I don't value your self-esteem. Truth is you are a nasty little bigot.
This coward of course REFUSED to live debate his/her delusional views.
Please show me some peer-reviewed science from the past 20 years referring to homosexuality as an "aberration."
This coward of course REFUSED to live debate his/her delusional views.
Obvious "macho man" is way too obvious.
This coward of course REFUSED to live debate his/her delusional views.
I have to laugh at your attempts to make us look bad. You say homosexuals are intolerant yet here you are attempting to publicly shame them. Your site is one of the most horrendous things I think I've ever seen. It seems to cater only to the needs of the socially inept, like yourself, or people who have never met their father lol. The whole thing seems to revolve around the fact that females are the problem. Absolutely pathetically written. I read through the ebook and I have to say I've never read anything so sexist and misogynous. Its funny though. The kind of people who read this junk are the ones who can't hold down a conversation with a women and thus want to blame this on women when they are infact the problem.
This coward of course REFUSED to live debate his/her delusional views.
You are being debated LIVE on this website right now. Many have stated their arguments and you have yet to reply to a single one. Why are you being such a little pseudo-intellectual bitch? Daddy fucked you too hard in the ass when you were a kid?
This coward of course REFUSED to live debate his/her delusional views. In fact, he/she was too fucking stupid to even understand the difference between hiding behind a keyboard and SPEAKING LIVE. :facepalm:
Yet you haven't responded to a single person's question. You sound like the coward.
This coward of course REFUSED to live debate his/her delusional views.
We ARE debating it live, coward. Right here. So far you haven't made a single valid point. Too big of a pussy?
This coward of course REFUSED to live debate his/her delusional views. Another fucking moron who couldn't tell the difference between a LIVE debate and hiding behind a keyboard. :facepalm:
I'm truly sorry that you have to deal with the immense discrimination and oppression that comes with being a straight, white male.
This coward of course REFUSED to live debate his/her delusional views.
But you are the one putting your fingers in your ears by making claims like "we know homosexuality is an aberration." You aren't brave, just dumb.
This coward of course REFUSED to live debate his/her delusional views.
Wow. You're entitled to your opinion but really? Comparing homosexuality to alcoholism?
This coward of course REFUSED to live debate his/her delusional views.
Can anyone here tell me who these guys are? I've seen them before pushing their manhood101.com site. Are they trolls or legitimate nutjobs? They seem like the Internet's Westboro Baptist Church.
This coward of course REFUSED to live debate his/her delusional views.
What the fuck are you talking about? Homosexuality goes back to the beginning and is not a "disease". You do realize that Spartans were all fags until they were of a certain age- then they were introduced to their wives later on. They even had to shave the women's heads on occasion just to keep the guy aroused when with her.And gay propaganda? So you can wear a Nickelback tshirt- even though that band is the worst example of straight males- but a homo can't wear a Supertramp shirt? Get real dude
This coward of course REFUSED to live debate his/her delusional views.
Homosexuality is only a damaging tendency because society isn't as welcoming towards it as towards other sexual orientations. There's nothing inherently bad about homosexuality - there are only the harms that people endure because they live in an intolerant society.
This coward of course REFUSED to live debate his/her delusional views.
I'm curious, how is homosexuality an aberration? And how is it a damaging tendency?I don't fear hearing the truth, I just feel like someone shouldn't be killed/jailed/discriminated against whether they like fucking someone of their own gender or drinking their liver into a grave.Edit: I am debating you live right now. So, please, don't open a door to a debate and then puss out by calling me and all the other people who replied pseudo-intellectual cowards.
This coward of course REFUSED to live debate his/her delusional views.
I'm assuming you're a troll, but yeah homosexuality isn't an aberration, nor is it a damaging tendency.
This coward of course REFUSED to live debate his/her delusional views.
I'm not sure I want to stir this pot. But what about bisexuals? Or lesbians? Just because something isn't a dominant social behaviour, does that make it necessarily socially detrimental. Or am I missing something here?
This coward of course REFUSED to live debate his/her delusional views.
Dear Cuntwad, This forum is one of the most pathetic things I've ever encountered. For a while, I actually thought it was an MRA satire because of the sheer absurdity. It's basically just a group of forever alone neckbeards blaming their own ineptitude on women. You have no interest in discussion. All you want is to perpetuate your ridiculous beliefs. It's nothing more than a giant circle jerk. I have no desire to "debate" any of you clowns because, while it may prove amusing, I'd rather not waste my time.
This coward of course REFUSED to live debate his/her delusional views.
your abhorrent lack of intelligent response...There is no use debating a person that is not even willing to acknowledge what someone is saying to them. Debating with you would be no different than trying to convince a clergyman to lose their religion.
Not ONE of these PATHETIC PSEUDO-INTELLECTUAL COWARDS had the BALLS to debate us.





NOT.

EVEN.

ONE....

:coward:

This is the type of cowardly pseudo-intellectual discourse that defines our world today. We are a society run by idiots--childish minds infecting adult bodies--masquerading as enlightened, progressive bastions of moral and intellectual good.

Image
social interaction is an interruption.

shape or be shaped.

User avatar
Info
Dean of Beatdowns
Posts: 10319
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:34 am
Contact:

Re: Failed arguments from our COWARDLY CRITICS

Post by Info » Tue Jan 22, 2013 12:47 pm

Here's some irony for you: The emasculated white knights known collectively as the MRM (Men's Rights Movement)/MRA (Men's Rights Activist) constantly complain about feminists censoring their comments:
liberalism/feminism is a one-way talk that forbids critical analysis.
Feminists can be some of the most pretentious fucking assholes I have ever experienced on the internet... ever.. and that is saying a LOT.
The lack of integrity is laughable.
That's the reality! You could point out every flaw in their feminist videos and get
"But feminists received online threats!! They must be right!"
The thing with Feminism is that it can only really operate when the narrative is controlled. In a free marketplace of ideas, it doesn't stand under basic scrutiny.
Criticism not allowed.
When you make an unanswerable point, what else can they do?
The logical answer is "examine position, revise, and continue discussion." The feminist answer is "ignore, discredit, throw tantrum."
Keep trying. The harder it is to get them to have the discussion, the more you need to have it with them. Keep trying; you'll get there.
:D1
"You disagree with me? This conversation is over you pos!"
You can only engage in a discussion for as long as the other party is willing. I cannot force them to respond. I cannot force them to confront these issues for which they don't have answers. And if they will not join in the conversation, then my power to engage with them ends.
Once tried to comment in a feminist, immediately banned.
A whole culture where everyone is forced to completely agree with each other. Yep.
I once tried to comment on feminist discussion. A mod replied "your whole comment is shit and terrible. Like you." and banned me before I could reply.
They have perfected
maintaining their confirmation bias
safezones.
Latch on to only one short sentence in an entire argument. Express faux-outrage at that one sentence. End conversation and pretend you were the victim.
Pretty boilerplate academic feminism.
Look at their feminist explanations of the wage gap. For every explanatory element, the answer just comes back to, well then the patriarchy is making women do this.
That's the problem. They just assume that they're in the right because somehow they're automatically right for being a feminist.
They grew up in a echo chamber environment where all opposing viewpoints are squelched and attacked. They literally cannot think about the topic because they never learned it; they were indoctrinated. That is why only the most skilled at mental gymnastics can even begin to debate, and their tactics of personal attacks and cries of misogyny are never far when they start to lose.
It's like screaming at an over tired toddler for crying; they honesty cannot conceptualize any possible wrongdoing on their part, so their defacto response is to cry harder.
You tried to have a dialogue with a feminist? Haha, so naive.
YET THESE SAME MRA COWARDS CENSOR Manhood 101 AND REFUSE TO DEBATE US.

Image

:giggle:

in essence, these fags who claim to care about men's rights and claim to be helping men are simply undercover feminists enforcing the same policies that emasculated them in the first place. :facepalm: they apply the same politically correct suppression of free speech as their opponents, yet have the nerve to complain about receiving similar treatment. this of course is already chronicled in our videos.

.....we're still waiting for JUST ONE of these fucking cowards to step forward and prove us wrong.
:D1
social interaction is an interruption.

shape or be shaped.

User avatar
Boris The Chick
Old enough to buy first Playboy
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 10:14 am

Re: Failed arguments from our COWARDLY CRITICS

Post by Boris The Chick » Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:31 am

You forgot all the cowardly
buzzwards
buzzwords that pseudo intellectuals use to
desacredit
discredit their opposition:
Ad hominem
Strawman
Fallacy

edit: sorry for my bad spanglish, i'm gonna keep practicing
Last edited by Boris The Chick on Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Info
Dean of Beatdowns
Posts: 10319
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:34 am
Contact:

Re: Failed arguments from our COWARDLY CRITICS

Post by Info » Wed Jan 23, 2013 1:10 pm

SeraphinaAizen wrote:I feel like it's trying to communicate with me, but I don't understand it...

I clicked this link in the hope that it would give me something to retort...some kind of nonsensical argument that I could destroy with my evil, heathen, woman loving, non-conformist ways. I hoped that I could give you first, second and third degree burns. I had hoped, in my naivety, that I could commit verbal murder.
Instead, I am met with this...? Son, I am disappoint. No argument, no justification, no rambling rhetoric for me to unleash the hounds upon? It's bad enough that you advertise yourself as a total douche, but you have to be a douche without a supporting argument?

Come on, guy. If you're going to be an asshole, at least give us some emissions to make fun of.

I should warn you that, as a lesbian atheist on the internet, I am extremely well versed in defending my point of view. Also, as the above comment would seem to suggest you possess the intelligence of a gummy bear that is in the process of passing through a cow's digestive system, I'm quite sure I would win any arguement between us.
we of course were shaking in our boots because she sounded so powerful on the internets!

Image

...............BUT

....summoning up every last ounce of courage, we challenged her to a LIVE debate....

Image

...but strangely, she was nowhere to be found! she must have gotten into a car accident.. or fallen into a canyon and sprained her ankle while hiking up Mt. Tampax. we immediately put out a search party to look for her...

Image

but sad to say, we couldn't find her. until this message in a bottle finally arrived on our shore:
SeraphinaAizen wrote: Why on earth would I be inclined to accommodate you when you've been nothing but aggressive, immature and insulting? Indeed, your very opening premise is grossly offensive. If you were intending to engage people in actual debate, might I suggest that you pose your question in a fashion that is mature, intelligent and actually invites discussion.

You look like an angry school child, who is incapable of expressing themselves in an intelligent manner. Everything you've said since has done nothing but reinforce this belief. The way you are conducting yourself is how children invite others into an argument. It is not how adults invite each other into conversation.
I'm not going to debate with you. Not because of cowardice, but because I think you are so far beneath me that it is actually a travesty to waste my contempt on you. It's good, premium quality contempt, and I was saving it for something better.
hmmmm that sounds familiar..... :think:
Pseudo-intellectual "debate"

Over the past half century, a competing mode of pseudo-intellectual debate has become steadily more entrenched in academe. The following are ten of its hallmarks:
  • "persons and positions are ordinarily closely related," with little insistence on keeping personal identity separate from the questions or issues under discussion;
  • "sensitivity, inclusivity, and inoffensiveness are key values";
  • priority on "cooperation, collaboration, quietness, sedentariness, empathy, equality, non-competitiveness, conformity, a communal focus";
  • "seems lacking in rationality and ideological challenge," in the eyes of proponents of modern debate;
  • tends to perceive the satire and criticism of modern debate as "vicious and personal attack, driven by a hateful animus";
  • is oriented to " the standard measures of grades, tests, and a closely defined curriculum";
  • lacking "means by which to negotiate or accommodate such intractable differences within its mode of conversation," it will "typically resort to the most fiercely antagonistic, demonizing, and personal attacks upon the opposition";
  • "will typically try, not to answer opponents with better arguments, but to silence them completely as ‘hateful’, ‘intolerant’, ‘bigoted’, ‘misogynistic’, ‘homophobic’, etc.";
  • has a more feminine flavor, as opposed to the more masculine flavor of intelligent debate;
  • results in "stale monologues" and contexts that "seldom produce strong thought, but rather tend to become echo chambers."
TL;DR:

Image
:coward:
social interaction is an interruption.

shape or be shaped.

User avatar
Info
Dean of Beatdowns
Posts: 10319
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:34 am
Contact:

Re: Failed arguments from our COWARDLY CRITICS

Post by Info » Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:45 pm

Today's cowards:
no one cares to waste their breath. you sound like an idiot. people like you are usually not interested in an intellectual discussion anyway
You think I want to spend my time creating well-reasoned responses when you'll just call me names? ...yea, have a good time with that.
To debate someone who has renounced the use of reason is the equivalent of administering medicine to the dead. Your prejudices are clear. We're all just glad no women will reproduce with you.
My excuse? I don't respond to bullying and coercion.
No. You'll use ridiculous "logic" that defies all reason, and it will make you look good when I have no means to argue against your strawmen. I learned a long time ago to avoid the trap you're trying to set. And you remind me way too much of a feminist for me to want to go there.
:D3
Why I refuse to debate you: Your general infantile attitude, your inability to engage in a formal, public debate. Your lacking ability in the English language, the list goes on, unfortunately it seems, your intelligence does not.
wait.. you won't publicly debate because .... we won't debate you in public.... even though we challenged you to a debate IN PUBLIC?

:?:

notice the same excuses over and over and over (along with some comically stupid new ones). just shows you how spineless and mentally inept this generation has become thanks to female-centric "education" that focuses on preserving everyone's self-esteem at the cost of telling the truth.

/chicklogic :airkiss:
social interaction is an interruption.

shape or be shaped.

User avatar
Info
Dean of Beatdowns
Posts: 10319
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:34 am
Contact:

Re: Failed arguments from our COWARDLY CRITICS

Post by Info » Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:59 pm

Any mention of LIVE Debate is usually a red flag
yes. these retards are THAT dumb.
stop making posts about HOW feminists won't debate and make an actual substantial argument, we can have a pleasant conversation.
behind your keyboard, you fucking coward. :giggle:
Seriously the faster you ban Manhood 101 members, the better
Image
Maybe more people would be interested in chatting with you if you stopped being an asshole.
The truth is a meanie! :~(
I couldn't find any info about a live debate...Hard to participate in something when you don't advertise it.
Gave her the info. She didn't bother showing up. :giggle:
Sure, I'll do it as soon as you decide to become a decent human being that doesn't have to resort to insults and antagonization to prove a point.
same feminist strategy over and over: "if i take everything as an insult, i'm justified in not having to make sense.

of course these dumb cunts have no problems throwing their own arsenal of insults our way. :blind:

/chicklogic
Most of their comments are blatant misogyny. No need to debate.
Don't debate them. They are trying to get business. They sell lessons and reading material.
Oh we're selling reading material that we give away for free? :think:
social interaction is an interruption.

shape or be shaped.

User avatar
Info
Dean of Beatdowns
Posts: 10319
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:34 am
Contact:

Re: Failed arguments from our COWARDLY CRITICS

Post by Info » Fri Feb 08, 2013 4:10 pm

TheGDBatman wrote:It's not that we're afraid to debate you, it's that your positions have no logical grounding. It would be like trying to debate a 5 year old who puts his hands over his ears, but instead of shouting "I can't hear you," it would be more "You're a faggot and a pussy and that's why you're wrong!" It wouldn't get anybody anywhere, so it's pointless.
:giggle:
yeah. so pointless that you just spent your time DEBATING IT, you fucking moron. /chicklogic :headwall:

/MRACowards
social interaction is an interruption.

shape or be shaped.

User avatar
Pouty
Jedi Bonersaber
Posts: 214
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 11:54 am

Re: Failed arguments from our COWARDLY CRITICS

Post by Pouty » Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:20 pm

Plum, you need to include Apollo's debate tactics. I think they're definitely the most interesting feminist rebuttals hahahahha

User avatar
Info
Dean of Beatdowns
Posts: 10319
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:34 am
Contact:

Re: Failed arguments from our COWARDLY CRITICS

Post by Info » Sat Feb 09, 2013 2:56 am

oh you mean her rebuttal by sexual assault? :D2
social interaction is an interruption.

shape or be shaped.

User avatar
Info
Dean of Beatdowns
Posts: 10319
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:34 am
Contact:

Re: Failed arguments from our COWARDLY CRITICS

Post by Info » Sun Feb 10, 2013 1:04 am

This faggot coward is hilarious. First he accepts the debate like a true internet tough guy:
huisme wrote:I would love to.
Please note though, I would like to cover the issues you find most important. for the most part, my comments will be in non-aggressive retaliation to questions- more like an interview, really.

so, if you have any specific issues you think you'd like to stump me on, I'd be happy to go over them with you in a live debate (no video, sorry, my connection lags whenever I turn the thing on).
Then he backs out at the last second:
huisme wrote:I'm afraid I can't enter such an obviously bigoted and biased environment
:D2

Translation:

Image
social interaction is an interruption.

shape or be shaped.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest