A Rebuttal to Krantzstone:
Krantzstone Item 21:
If women are “insolent little children”, why are you the one whining that women don’t like short men, as if short men have some expectation of entitlement to the affections of women? Have you considered the possibility that women don’t like you, not because you’re short, but because you’re a misogynistic asshat?
Whether women are “insolent little children” is non sequitur to a criticism of one of their prejudices. Not only that, to bring up a clearly demonstrated partiality like how many women are dismissive of short men, does not mean the plaintiff is part of the marginalized group, or even marginalized at all. You are merely trying to harm your opponent by whatever you think is a potential sensitivity. That in itself is indicative of your bully mentality.
Just how does one arrive at “short men must have an attitude of entitlement to the affections of women”? This is unfounded. It is like saying this ethnicity feels entitled because they are identifying situations where they are being unfairly treated. You are ridiculing based on a false notion. Considering that you tout yourself as an advocate of “equal opportunity” but immediately misrepresent a plaintiff when they identify a tort based on your “feelings” about him. Shameful.
Have you considered what most can see here? Namely: that in lieu of an effort to seek the truth, you attempt to injure those who disagree with you? Seriously Krantz, your ad hominem is a strong indicator that you are aware of the fallacious foundations of your cause.
Oh, and as far as whether or not being an asshat matters to women? From observation, when considering a mate, most women are far more concerned with how you look to their peers. How you act, your moral fiber, or even how you treat her is secondary to looking like a trophy. That includes height and how rich you look. It works for me and I really couldn’t care less if Betas or Omegas think I’m an Asshat, a misogynist, or any combination of insulting monikers. If she “thinks” I’m badass, that’s all that matters.
Krantzstone Item 22:
Nah, your cognitive dissonance would never allow you to even entertain the possibility that you might be the one in the wrong, but instead you will get instantly hostile towards anyone who might suggest you are less than perfect… hmmm, pretty much like how this comments thread has been going ever since I riddled your ridiculous arguments with logic and rational thought. Actually, technically the holes in your arguments were already there, I didn’t need to do anything except point them out to you. Don’t shoot the messenger, that’s just transference. ;P
Lol. Your entire contribution here is really just a projection of the angst from the cognitive dissonance you struggle with. You project this “womyn are perfect beings and it is only because of the phantom oppression of men that keeps them from realizing their perfection” notion onto others so you can obfuscate how it is actually the attitude of Neo-feminists.
You did little riddling of Gorf’s arguments with logic and rational thought. When one has to resort to defining “50 Shades of Feminism”, you are hardly using logic. You just apply fallacious arguments to avoid Gorf’s apt comment that even in situations where women have been afforded equal opportunity to act, the records shows that they do not meet their boasts of “equal ability”. This is demonstrated in STEM vocations and it is clearly demonstrated in military endeavors. Merely having some who served is not an argument that women can hope to compete in an arena were pure brute force and resilience are often the defining variables of success. It is a hollow victory to have the legislation re-written to include women as part of the applicants for front line combat duty. Like I’ve mentioned, it really is no different than opening up the competition to seniors and paraplegics. The physical abilities are just that different.
Krantzstone Item 23:
And unfortunately, it looks like you’re the one who is brainwashed, if you can’t even put together a coherent and logical argument without lowering yourself to trying to make pitiful, personal attacks in lieu of an actual cogent point.
Gorf’s original comment was referencing how many women (and especially those “fighting” under the Neo-feminist banner) can’t seem to see that (a) few women choose hard physical labor as a vocation, (b) many specious ignore their complicity in human interaction and blame men and men alone when they “feel” oppressed, and (c) that when given the opportunity act with extreme prejudice and reject men for an innocuous and innate trait like height. Those are reasoned and reasonable arguments based on how many millennial women in the First World act. To that, some troll named Rachel deflects from what she couldn’t address. You then take his comment out-of-context to introduce your specious arguments and use that as an excuse to lay on the ad hominem. Please. You are the one that applies personal attack like it was on sale at Wal-Mart.
There are good reasons as to why women were usually not invited to the initial call for front line combat units. I’ve shown you one of those reasonable arguments. There are others, and someone as brilliant as you seem to think you are should be able to easily source them Online. You cannot ignore those reasons and think that you are applying a cogent case based only on “equal” access to competition (especially when Gorf has mentioned how women have a track record of not allowing the very same “equal opportunity” based on irrational prejudice).
Krantzstone Item 24:
Seriously? Gorf defeated your argument the moment you chose to conveniently ignore his comment about the hypocrisy in how feminists allow women much prejudice but think that the “Patriarchy” must allow “equal competition” even in competitions they can rarely outpace men on.