Responding to Arbourist the Happy Abortionist Part Deux
Responding to Arbourist the Happy Abortionist in a post for content’s sake. Her response was to my post here.
“Wow, my very own post. I appreciate the vitriol and furious whinging going on all for me benefit. Thank you.”
Vitriol and furious whinging? Feminists love bandying about their collection of victim cards, no? You aren’t seriously taking this all personally, are you?
“You seem not to realize that using violence is almost exclusively in the realm of men. It’s all fine and well to faff on about some specific case of women behaving badly, but it is certainly not the standard for society.”
You seem not to realize that none of what you say here seems an objective reaction to anything I’ve said. Let me remind you that you were admonishing me for ‘condoning violence’ against women, despite that you would do or condone the same on men. Of course, to save face, you deny this (and have in fact denied this). Your initial response to my previous post, however, can reasonably be construed to mean exactly that. But more to the point, you seem not aware that what you said is profoundly misandristic (violence is exclusively in the realm of men?), at least if we were to adopt the conventional feminist ‘I-am-woman-hear-me-roar’ metric for ascertaining mysogyny. See, feminists were just recently aghast by the study (which you’ve no doubt heard about) that seemed to show significant differences between the wiring of male and female brains. It reinforces stereotypes, they say — you know, like that galactically ridiculous stereotype that men are different from women [*nudge-nudge, wink-wink*]. Feminists will have none of that, see. Yet, here we are, hearing, from a feminist of the same cabal no less, that men are in fact significantly different from women. Feminist seem to be inordinately inclined to bandy about ‘differences’ that seem to point to them having some moral advantage — yet when it can only succeed in doing the opposite, they are apparently nonexistent. But, hey, let’s not get ahead of ourselves.
“Wow, you had better call in the MRA’s and MGTOW’s to fight this feminist revolution. Feeling all oppressed while being the dominant class in society is hard work, mostcertainly.”
Of course this is another one of your attempts to bait me into responding in a manner that concedes a false premise, but hey, why not let’s give it some thought: why is it that to you men seem the ‘dominant class’? You’d think if there were no significant differences between the sexes, then thousands of years of evolution would have ironed that out, no?
“Well, violence would certainly be decreased if men would stop killing each other no? But we certainly can’t have that, much better to blame women for the problems of men. You certainly have that talent down cold.”
Let me remind you again that I was referring to a specific case where violence was clearly being done on men. But, as per the usual feminist rhetoric, you completely gloss over this fact, going on a weird tangent claiming men are violent to each other anyway, as if any of this makes an iota of sense.
“I don’t recall supporting the women’s actions on the video. But if you’d like to erroneously attribute things to me that I didn’t say, do be my guest.”
So I say in no ambiguous terms that the men would have been morally justified in physically retaliating against the women who were behaving rabidly against them and you retort by accusing me of condoning violence, and I’m supposed to take that as you NOT supporting the women’s actions in the video. The principle of charity hardly means I have to accept your post hoc rationalizations and/or your backpedalling to save face.
“Sorry to interrupt your fetus-worship but again, mischaracterizing what I say doesn’t make your argument any stronger. Fetuses are not sentient during much of their development, giving them more rights than women is quite asinine.”
I wonder why you always think your moving the goalposts would simply pass by me unnoticed. ‘Sentience’ is merely the minimum requirement for someone to be able to drive and vote, something you say fetuses cannot do and therefore can be killed. Do I really have to quote what you said?
O.K., here’s you (emphasis added): “Let me know when fetuses start acting like full members of society, fetal voting rights, fetal driving age etc.”
If you’re now serious about making ‘sentience’ the minimum criteria for having the right to live, then I’m content to point you to our previous discussion where I’ve dismantled this argument, and from which you have unfortunately learned nothing.
In any case, thanks Arbourist, for upping my daily readership from 5 to 6.