Rebuttal for Krantzstone:
Krantz Item 39:
Your attempt to typify my argument as me equating “manspreading” to Rosa Parks is a straw man argument, since that obviously wasn’t what I was arguing.
No. The error (and likely an intentional error) in your statement is that you are attempting to misrepresent Gorf’s provocation (that neo-feminists exaggerate small issues as if these issues are really magnified because one is a woman, or, if these issues were really all that big to begin with) to be a fallacy of relative privation. It clearly isn’t. Gorf’s salient point is that neo-feminists surreptitiously couch minor transgressions as specifically against women, and, go on about them as if they were relatively important.
His original comment is there for all to see. It is not focused on “relative privation”. Stop trying this dishonest tactic.
Krantz Item 40:
But your sarcastic straw man also points to “Not as bad as” fallacy, since your very straw man argument suggests that you believe that any issue that is not as egregiously bad as anti-black racism in the US, is a non-issue (also the fallacy of false dichotomy), even though amazingly, it’s possible for people to care about more than one thing at a time. 😛
No. M.G. How’s satirical remark is in the same spirit as Gorf’s. Namely, it is in highlighting how many neo-feminist’s issues are about relatively minor transgressions that are often only “felt” as “against women”. The subway seating allotment overage is a good example. Any one doing that is either unaware or “does not care”. However, it is rarely (if ever) specifically targeted at women. What? Are some SJW’s going to say that this one time, they saw a guy move aside for a man, but not for a woman? Seriously, Krantz, when you purposely misrepresent the comment from Gorf to be that of a fallacy of relative privation, you are doing it so you have something to refute. That’s wasn’t the case so stop trying to pretend that it was.
It is certainly possible for people to care about more than one thing at a time. However, where has M.G. How indicated that people are not? The point still is that some of the things (well, frankly, a lot of the things) that neo-feminists whine about are inflated and perverted by their “feelings”. People can care about all sorts of things, but making a Federal case (literally true in some instances) out of minor issues is ridiculous (and aptly ridiculed).
Krantz Item 41:
1) I didn’t bring up manspreading, GORF did.
2) I didn’t bring up the ’60s Civil Rights movement (or alluded to it), you did.
3) Both are examples of attempts to deflect and derail the discussion by bringing up topics which have nothing to do with the matter at hand.
First of all, while Gorf did bring up “manspreading”, he brought it up to illuminate how neo-feminists harp on relatively benign issues and even then try to misrepresent a particular tort as essentially targeted at women. In contrast, it is you that surreptitiously suggest that it was brought up to diminish the issue by putting it up against more significant ones. You did it to create a false sense that Gorf was presenting case via the fallacy of relative privation. He wasn’t.
Second of all, the civil rights case was brought up to further demonstrate how trivial “manspreading” is in the scheme of things. This means that “relative privation” is significant, and is not so much a fallacy when we consider what women are whining about. The reasons why focusing on “manspreading” is just more of the sexist attitude of neo-feminists is explained in detail in my associated response. You should read that and re-evaluate your beliefs.
Thirdly, it is really you that employs non-sequitur tangents in attempts to make it seem that you are the voice of reason in a chorus of blind faith. The reality is that it is you that constantly employs the usual subterfuge (replete with purposely misrepresented facts and figures, biased opinion masquerading as peer-reviewed supposition, etc…) we have all come to expect from neo-feminists and their sycophantic white knights. You SJWs really ought to drop the condescending attitude and recognize that most people see right through your concocted revelations. Of course, free will is free will. You can continue your path and look more the fool. The choice is still yours.
Krantz Item 42:
In fact, women going into combat also really has nothing to do with the actual subject matter of the original article being responded to, but I chose to address it nonetheless because it was a ridiculous argument in and of itself, even if it was off-topic (it was actually just a thinly-veiled anti-feminist rant).
As introduced by Gorf, it was completely appropriate. The CONTEXT (yes, that inescapable concept of CONTEXT) in which he brought in mortal combat was that neo-feminists are hardly in a position to claim they “fought” hard for something when all they do is whine about things like “people aren’t being nice to me”, or, “people aren’t believing my seriously misrepresented numbers”, or, “if you say I’m beautiful but I see you as a scrub, then you are offending and oppressing me”. Really, that describes the greater share of neo-feminist “fighting”.
In distinction, men (be it voluntarily or largely by conscription) have given life and limb to create a relatively safe environment for all. It is that very environment that neo-feminists abuse (and there is no better word to describe their entitlement than “abuse”) by selectively recognizing situations where they are under achieving, blaming it on society (aka “The Patriarchy”) and demanding that their performance be augmented by legislation.
As such, it is far from the “ridiculous” argument you misrepresent it to be. It is, really, an argument you cannot refute and resort to the usual dishonest tactics in an attempt to silence.
Krantz Item 43:
I notice no one actually wants to address that considering just the other week it was made official that women are not barred from combat roles in the US military (although this has been the case for some time in many militaries around the world).
It is this very pride that makes your denouement that much more satisfying. It has been addressed. If you erroneously “noticed” that no one actually wanted to address that contention, you are betraying the typical lack of insight that most SJWs are suffering from. Granted, you were probably so self-assured that you wouldn’t bother to explore a bit further than this thread. However, I’ve refuted your notions on that very topic several days ago, and if you had checked the link in my profile, you’d have seen it. I hinted at this with my responses here. At any rate, I have presented in detail why your notion is incorrect. I’ll summarize…
Basically, main difference is that men are often placed in combat roles with or without their personal consent (Even nations that have mandatory, or was that “womyndatory” drafts for all, don’t have women out-competing men for the front line duties). If anything many men, even when not volunteering for the role, have given up life, limb and psychological well-being on behalf of the state. Women, as a whole, have not been put in these situations very often (if really at all). History bears this out, so don’t present some cherry-picked anecdote as if it refutes the general record. This is key to how women are historically sheltered from the nasty business of resource allotment via non-negotiation.
Now, of course, many will say that “women ONLY didn’t represent because the governing state did not allow it”. Well, that is conveniently ignoring why that happens. If combat roles were open to all (including the blind, the aged, the crippled, those that can’t fight on school nights, etc…) it would be monumental waste of time in determining who actually makes the grade. Out of 100 open positions for front line active duty, it would be doubtful if a single one would be female. Men are just that much more suited for combat duty.
Why do you think that Fire Departments had differing physical thresholds for men and women? Seriously, Krantz. You don’t see a lot of 60-year-old guys complaining that they weren’t part of a draft. Neo feminists love to complain about things that they know they will rarely be put to the test in. There’s no Patriarchal Oppression against being a plumber (not that physically demanding, but it sure is messy), yet how many women are plumbers?
While legislation can make a two tier system that favors women, fires and fire-fights, and hand-to-hand combat are not nearly as sympathetic to the natural differences between men and women. (To anyone that thinks that “modern warfare” frontline combat does not boil down to hand-to-hand, read my full response before making a complete fool of yourself).
You’re done here, Krantz. Your credibility is gone.