Free speech.

[TheDemonLord]

Just as you have zero evidence for the conjecture you invented.

Except the two bits of evidence that you repeatedly dismiss - namely:

1: What actually happened
2: What was actually said.

Which is more than what you have for your conjecture.

Do you dispute my interpretation of it though?

Your interpretation hinges on it being a true statement - so I'm asking you to demonstrate that it's true.

Unless of course, you want to concede that you are willfully believing something untrue in order to avoid conceding a point...

What exactly am I dismissing? I'm not going to argue against it since it is just some link online you posted. Find the intelligence to make your own point.

Read what you just wrote - that's you dismissing it, again. Obscure, not scholarly "Just some link online" - more of the same refusal to argue the point, more the of the same implicit concession that you can't argue against the point.

Consensus of the field? sounds like you think that gives her point some authority

Except it's not me now is it?

I've been consistently rational, it is illogical for you to judge me by the actions of other feminists. The scientific method shows that privilege exists, but it is not applicable to all white males. This is consistent with the points I have been making all along.

Yet, you're a self-declared Feminist, so it is ENTIRELY logical to critique you on the tenants and philosophers of the world view you claim to adhere to.

And what scientific method shows that Privilege exists - I'll bet it's:

a: full of Marxist presuppositions that have not been proven.
b: full of woeful abuse of statistics.
c: peer reviewed by people who possess the same ideological bent with a vested interest in validating their beliefs.

Cases in point: The Wage Gap, 2% false accusation, 1 in 4 women on College Campus etc.

No you moron, read the words, "I could equally find a description that doesn't say it applies to all of them", yet somehow you seem to have read that as 'says it doesn't apply'. Feel free to offer an apology for your misinterpretation...

Except you have to take the context in which you made the statement - which was a rebuttal to the description that explicitly stated "All Males" - if it fails to specify a limited subset then it doesn't actually rebut the point.

If you make a statement that "I have all the oranges" and I make a statement "You have oranges" - These two statements do not contradict each other - however, if I make the statement "You have some oranges" - that does contradict that statement.

So, In order for your challenge to actually rebut what I've said - you have to post a definition that explicitly states it doesn't apply to all them.

Which is where you started pissing and moaning. As for Apologies - when you've graduated English 101 and can understand this, I'll accept yours to me in writing, along with a donation to the "Centre for Advanced Sarcasm and Hilarity"

You're not using the same method at all though. If you were, you would show that male supremacy is the central social organising feature in US.

Oh but I am - you see, I'm stating a conclusion and throwing out a whole load of BS post hoc justifications to prove it.

[Graystone]

Except the two bits of evidence that you repeatedly dismiss - namely:

1: What actually happened
2: What was actually said.

Which is more than what you have for your conjecture.



Your interpretation hinges on it being a true statement - so I'm asking you to demonstrate that it's true.

Unless of course, you want to concede that you are willfully believing something untrue in order to avoid conceding a point...



Read what you just wrote - that's you dismissing it, again. Obscure, not scholarly "Just some link online" - more of the same refusal to argue the point, more the of the same implicit concession that you can't argue against the point.



Except it's not me now is it?



Yet, you're a self-declared Feminist, so it is ENTIRELY logical to critique you on the tenants and philosophers of the world view you claim to adhere to.

And what scientific method shows that Privilege exists - I'll bet it's:

a: full of Marxist presuppositions that have not been proven.
b: full of woeful abuse of statistics.
c: peer reviewed by people who possess the same ideological bent with a vested interest in validating their beliefs.

Cases in point: The Wage Gap, 2% false accusation, 1 in 4 women on College Campus etc.



Except you have to take the context in which you made the statement - which was a rebuttal to the description that explicitly stated "All Males" - if it fails to specify a limited subset then it doesn't actually rebut the point.

If you make a statement that "I have all the oranges" and I make a statement "You have oranges" - These two statements do not contradict each other - however, if I make the statement "You have some oranges" - that does contradict that statement.

So, In order for your challenge to actually rebut what I've said - you have to post a definition that explicitly states it doesn't apply to all them.

Which is where you started pissing and moaning. As for Apologies - when you've graduated English 101 and can understand this, I'll accept yours to me in writing, along with a donation to the "Centre for Advanced Sarcasm and Hilarity"



Oh but I am - you see, I'm stating a conclusion and throwing out a whole load of BS post hoc justifications to prove it.

Those two things apply equally to my conjecture as they do yours.

No, my interpretation is just of what he meant by the words. He doesn't have to be right, to have an interpretable meaning.

You are really determined to go full katman here aren't you? Pointing at sites/videos and going, "look, that means I'm right" is up to fuck all. Reference other things to support your point, not to make it...

Thats absurd, desist with this race to the bottom bullshit. Stop trying to justify your blatant strawmanning.

Oh fuck off, you clearly misinterpretted the words, now you're trying to cover your arse with some bullshit. You even said "you claimed you could find a definition that contradicts what I said", which I never did.

If you were using the same method, you'd either show that male supremacy is the central social organising feature in US, or you'd point out why it didn't have to be for the earlier definition to apply. Instead you've gone off on some strawman tangent about patriarchy...

[avgas]

That was in response to katman suggesting a video of why we can trust science; it's irrelevant because blindly trusting science would be unscientific!

But think of the explosions dammit! Think of the explosions.

I was going to respond to the rest of this thread. It seems you like to talk (or rebut), but not others to.

Would that be a fair consensus? It certainly would save me a lot of reading.

(Actually don't really care about the Privileged white man stuff......and I think in the modern society if any woman did and really wanted to prove a point she would become a he and then show us how privileged she was).
Likewise the white thing, which a lovely Indian chap proved us wrong about 5 years ago. He just graduated with full scholarships as a black man.
My sons are half Chinese and half white, and male. So they don't really stand a chance at getting college admission here - so going to have to rename them Maori names and say they are Pacific Islanders.

[Graystone]

But think of the explosions dammit! Think of the explosions.

I was going to respond to the rest of this thread. It seems you like to talk (or rebut), but not others to.

Would that be a fair consensus? It certainly would save me a lot of reading.

(Actually don't really care about the Privileged white man stuff......and I think in the modern society if any woman did and really wanted to prove a point she would become a he and then show us how privileged she was).
Likewise the white thing, which a lovely Indian chap proved us wrong about 5 years ago. He just graduated with full scholarships as a black man.
My sons are half Chinese and half white, and male. So they don't really stand a chance at getting college admission here - so going to have to rename them Maori names and say they are Pacific Islanders.

I'm fine with others talking and rebutting, as long as their rebuttal is done in a rational fashion. Do you have an issue with the way I rebutted your points about the meaning of the term?

I think you'll find transgender people have their own set of societal disadvantages...

[TheDemonLord]

Those two things apply equally to my conjecture as they do yours.

Care to Demonstrate that? You've simply asserted some "Maybes" to avoid conceding the point.

No, my interpretation is just of what he meant by the words. He doesn't have to be right, to have an interpretable meaning.

So it's willfully believing a lie then - glad to know that's the limit of your ideological rigour.

You are really determined to go full katman here aren't you? Pointing at sites/videos and going, "look, that means I'm right" is up to fuck all. Reference other things to support your point, not to make it...

More avoidance, born out of your inability to argue against the very clear wording of "All Males" - I'll simply restate - all you have to do here is post a definition that explicitly limits the group membership (like you claimed) - I've outlined the criteria - you've had several pages to do so, and yet nothing is forthcoming.

Thats absurd, desist with this race to the bottom bullshit. Stop trying to justify your blatant strawmanning.

You brought Racism and Sexism into this, now you are complaining about a Race to the Bottom. Something Something Double Standard Something.

And I also note the lack of scientific evidence of Privilege posted. Funny that, that's the second time I've called your bluff and you've tucked tail.

Oh fuck off, you clearly misinterpretted the words, now you're trying to cover your arse with some bullshit. You even said "you claimed you could find a definition that contradicts what I said", which I never did.

There's that Nerve again. It's not Bullshit - it's English and Context. In order to rebut the explicit description of "All Males", you'll need to post a description/definition that explicitly limits the group membership. Let's skip all your posturing and whining - you can't post it, because it doesn't exist. It doesn't exist because the concept clearly applies to "All Males" - and because of that, your defence against it being a Racist, Sexist concept does not fly.

If you were using the same method, you'd either show that male supremacy is the central social organising feature in US, or you'd point out why it didn't have to be for the earlier definition to apply. Instead you've gone off on some strawman tangent about patriarchy...

Psssst Some Tangent about Patriarchy is showing Male Supremacy.... (using the Feminist methodology).

[TheDemonLord]

I'm fine with others talking and rebutting, as long as their rebuttal is done in a rational fashion.

Thus spake every tyrannical Authoritarian ever.




Tell me Graystone - exactly who get to decide what is "Rational Fashion"

[Ocean1]

exactly who get to decide what is "Rational Fashion"

Please allow me to introduce myself.....

[Graystone]

Care to Demonstrate that? You've simply asserted some "Maybes" to avoid conceding the point.



So it's willfully believing a lie then - glad to know that's the limit of your ideological rigour.



More avoidance, born out of your inability to argue against the very clear wording of "All Males" - I'll simply restate - all you have to do here is post a definition that explicitly limits the group membership (like you claimed) - I've outlined the criteria - you've had several pages to do so, and yet nothing is forthcoming.



You brought Racism and Sexism into this, now you are complaining about a Race to the Bottom. Something Something Double Standard Something.

And I also note the lack of scientific evidence of Privilege posted. Funny that, that's the second time I've called your bluff and you've tucked tail.



There's that Nerve again. It's not Bullshit - it's English and Context. In order to rebut the explicit description of "All Males", you'll need to post a description/definition that explicitly limits the group membership. Let's skip all your posturing and whining - you can't post it, because it doesn't exist. It doesn't exist because the concept clearly applies to "All Males" - and because of that, your defence against it being a Racist, Sexist concept does not fly.



Psssst Some Tangent about Patriarchy is showing Male Supremacy.... (using the Feminist methodology).

A 'maybe' is all I need to refute your point that it couldn't be.

Where has belief come from? I pulled you up for removing context which changed the meaning. That you call his words a lie shows you do understand what he meant, but decided to take the quote out of context to change that meaning anyway.

I did not claim anything of the sort. Please show me where I did so.

Racism/sexism is obviously a sketchy topic, but it is by no means the start of a race to the bottom. Please calm down and post rational things!

The definition of the term is never clearly defined. I use it in the sense conveyed by the words, where it is not a racist/sexist concept.

Try using some rational methodology instead, you never know, you might like it...

Thus spake every tyrannical Authoritarian ever.

Tell me Graystone - exactly who get to decide what is "Rational Fashion"

The readers, the participants in the discussion, it's clearly a subjective measure. I'll tell you who shouldn't get to decide though, people who deliberately quote things without their proper context to change the meaning or perceived intent. Fuckwits who do that, only show that they believe they have the right to decide what is rational, and what isn't.

[TheDemonLord]

A 'maybe' is all I need to refute your point that it couldn't be.

U Wot m8? This is coming from the person who has been extolling the scientific method? So, you're saying that all that's needed to refute a point is someone to suggest an alternative with no facts to back it up? Maybe Gravity is caused by invisible fairies pulling everything down - Take that Sir Isaac Newton.

You need something to back your 'maybe' up.

Where has belief come from? I pulled you up for removing context which changed the meaning. That you call his words a lie shows you do understand what he meant, but decided to take the quote out of context to change that meaning anyway.

Well, either his statement was true - and you can demonstrate how it can be so, or it's a lie and you can't demonstrate it.

If it's true, then leaving it out would be deliberately deceptive. If it's a lie, then leaving it out avoids confusion.

Your statement "He doesn't have to be right, to have an interpretable meaning." given how you've held this meaning to be valid so as to be able to claim deception on my part means that you are willfully believing something that cannot be true, in order to avoid conceding the point.

I did not claim anything of the sort. Please show me where I did so.

Yes, more reversals, u-turns and withdrawals - see the part where I pointed out that given the context of

a: What I said
b: What you said in rebuttal

That the level required was something to explicitly contradict what I had said - namely a definition or description that states it does not apply to everyone. That you've failed to provide it, is proof in of itself.

Racism/sexism is obviously a sketchy topic, but it is by no means the start of a race to the bottom. Please calm down and post rational things!

Uh Huh. If only there was a series of common English phrases about when people bring up prejudicial subjects in order to avoid a discussion on a point they are loosing - if only...

The definition of the term is never clearly defined. I use it in the sense conveyed by the words, where it is not a racist/sexist concept.

Bullshit. It's clearly enough defined for anyone who is not a raving Marxist to know it's Racist and Sexist. And furthermore, simply redefining words and concepts as to "how I use it" is no defence.

Those words, phrases and terms have a Meaning - problem is that meaning clearly meets the standard for what is a Racist, Sexist statement. So now you've resorted to trying to redefine things in order to avoid being tarred with that brush.

If I use the word "Nigger" - but I claim I'm not using it in a racist manner - how far will that defence get me? I'll give you a hint - it's as far as I'm letting your defence take you. Which is no where.

Try using some rational methodology instead, you never know, you might like it...

You missed the point where I'm imitating the fields and studies that you hold to, the same ones that generated these bogus concepts. It's funny how when it's turned back on you it's all "Irrational" and "Not the Scientific Method" - That's a whole lot of double standard right there.

I'm deliberately demonstrating a post-hoc justification - and suddenly I'm the irrational one...

The readers, the participants in the discussion, it's clearly a subjective measure. I'll tell you who shouldn't get to decide though, people who deliberately quote things without their proper context to change the meaning or perceived intent. Fuckwits who do that, only show that they believe they have the right to decide what is rational, and what isn't.

You clearly don't get it.

What you are describing is in effect the Hecklers Veto. The point is: No one (myself included in that universal group) should get to decide. And that's the difference.

You're happy with Censorship when it suits your agenda, I'm not happy with Censorship even when it would help my agenda.

[pritch]

Please allow me to introduce myself.....

I'm a man of wealth and taste

[Graystone]

U Wot m8? This is coming from the person who has been extolling the scientific method? So, you're saying that all that's needed to refute a point is someone to suggest an alternative with no facts to back it up? Maybe Gravity is caused by invisible fairies pulling everything down - Take that Sir Isaac Newton.

You need something to back your 'maybe' up.



Well, either his statement was true - and you can demonstrate how it can be so, or it's a lie and you can't demonstrate it.

If it's true, then leaving it out would be deliberately deceptive. If it's a lie, then leaving it out avoids confusion.

Your statement "He doesn't have to be right, to have an interpretable meaning." given how you've held this meaning to be valid so as to be able to claim deception on my part means that you are willfully believing something that cannot be true, in order to avoid conceding the point.



Yes, more reversals, u-turns and withdrawals - see the part where I pointed out that given the context of

a: What I said
b: What you said in rebuttal

That the level required was something to explicitly contradict what I had said - namely a definition or description that states it does not apply to everyone. That you've failed to provide it, is proof in of itself.



Uh Huh. If only there was a series of common English phrases about when people bring up prejudicial subjects in order to avoid a discussion on a point they are loosing - if only...



Bullshit. It's clearly enough defined for anyone who is not a raving Marxist to know it's Racist and Sexist. And furthermore, simply redefining words and concepts as to "how I use it" is no defence.

Those words, phrases and terms have a Meaning - problem is that meaning clearly meets the standard for what is a Racist, Sexist statement. So now you've resorted to trying to redefine things in order to avoid being tarred with that brush.

If I use the word "Nigger" - but I claim I'm not using it in a racist manner - how far will that defence get me? I'll give you a hint - it's as far as I'm letting your defence take you. Which is no where.



You missed the point where I'm imitating the fields and studies that you hold to, the same ones that generated these bogus concepts. It's funny how when it's turned back on you it's all "Irrational" and "Not the Scientific Method" - That's a whole lot of double standard right there.

I'm deliberately demonstrating a post-hoc justification - and suddenly I'm the irrational one...



You clearly don't get it.

What you are describing is in effect the Hecklers Veto. The point is: No one (myself included in that universal group) should get to decide. And that's the difference.

You're happy with Censorship when it suits your agenda, I'm not happy with Censorship even when it would help my agenda.

A plausible alternative, sure. The theory of gravity may not have been your best choice of example

Changing the meaning of what he meant, is the deception.

I have never claimed I could "post a definition that explicitly limits the group membership", stop making shit up.

It was never posted in an attempt to avoid discussion though.

Nigger has a definition which includes a usage alert for being one of the most offensive words. You don't even have a definition for the term "White Male Privilege", they are clearly on different levels.

It isn't a double standard, as I do not practice or agree with the irrational methodology used by other feminists. Please stop trying to judge me based on their actions.

Yet you changed the meaning of another persons quote to help your agenda, at least censorship is honest.

[Ocean1]

I'm a man of wealth and taste

Been around for a long long year

[Graystone]

Been around for a long long year

tried to hug the wrong wrong bear...

[TheDemonLord]

A plausible alternative, sure. The theory of gravity may not have been your best choice of example

And how is plausibility determined? Why, that would be some form of supporting evidence... Now, I'll grant you that the difference between plausible and verified is the strength of that evidence - but you are still left with the conclusion:

In order to avoid conceding the point (for which there is evidence) - you've had to make some shit up (for which there isn't).

Changing the meaning of what he meant, is the deception.

Cool - so all we need to do now is validate that what he meant was true: So if you could explain how one can monitor behavior on twitter without monitoring content - we can clear this accusation up.

I have never claimed I could "post a definition that explicitly limits the group membership", stop making shit up.

I know you didn't say that, but in the context of what was said, that IS what you would need to do. You haven't done it, because you can't do it. So I'm both mocking you for your failed challenge and pointing out at because you can't do it, your defence has no basis ergo the concept is Racist and Sexist.

It was never posted in an attempt to avoid discussion though.

It was posted to divert the discussion... Otherwise why post it?

Nigger has a definition which includes a usage alert for being one of the most offensive words. You don't even have a definition for the term "White Male Privilege", they are clearly on different levels.

Let's see - it's Racially based, and has a negative connotation. Which word/phrase am I referring to?

Maybe that will help you see why they are on the same level.

It isn't a double standard, as I do not practice or agree with the irrational methodology used by other feminists. Please stop trying to judge me based on their actions.

You adhere to the concept of "White Male Privilege" - so yes, you do practice and agree with Irrational Methodology used by Feminists. Which is why I'm judging you as such.

Of course - you are free to renounce your belief in this racist, sexist concept - but I doubt you'll be going that anytime soon.

Yet you changed the meaning of another persons quote to help your agenda, at least censorship is honest.

No, I left out the statement that was a complete contradiction.

However - here is the thing: you STILL don't get it - statements like "Censorship is honest" - No. It is not. Look at the conversation we are having now: I did omit something and I've outlined my reasons for doing so and I've outlined an objective measure for you to prove me wrong (which you can't satisfy because the statement was impossible - hence the omission) and you are objecting to it (as is your right).

For a minute consider the possibility, that the censors pen was not writ in your favor. Consider that everything you dislike that I say went unchallenged. Consider the possibility that your supposed moral superiority wasn't the mainstream view. Consider that in every single instance of history when the rights of others have been trampled upon by Zealots in a quest for the greater good, it was the zealots themselves who always found themselves second against the wall - because you can never be as pure as an ideal.

It's funny, because this is such an old concept that people keep failing to learn.

Have you read 1984 or Animal Farm? Have you read any number of books about propaganda and censorship? Have you listened to Megadeth?:

A cockroach in the concrete, courthouse tan and beady eyes.
A slouch with fallen arches, purging truths into great lies.
A little man with a big eraser, changing history
Procedures that he's programmed to, all he hears and sees.

Altering the facts and figures, events and every issue.
Make a person disappear, and no one will ever miss you.

Rewrites every story, every poem that ever was.
Eliminates incompetence, and those who break the laws.
Follow the instructions of the New Ways' Evil Book of Rules.
Replacing rights with wrongs, the files and records in the schools.

[husaberg]

Spoken like a true prodigy