More Fairy Tales IV

A rebuttal for Krantzstone:

Krantz Item 50:

M.G. How

13 days ago

“Women think sexual offences happen to 1 in 4 women, but patriarchy! Girls have wages-inequality!”

Sorry, I don’t see “Canada” written anywhere in that post. If he was specifying Canada, he should have said “_Canadian_ women”.

Even in comparison to the usual neo-feminist troll your DISHONESTY is remarkable, Krantz.

Here you speciously choose to focus on M.G. How using the example of Canada as if it is not representative of the experience in the First World. To be clear, it is the First World that is usually referenced when people make claims of rape and sexual assault ratios. It is in the misrepresentation of the First World rates (via various subterfuge including, but not exclusive to: Including various other torts including “feeling uncomfortable”, a loose or nebulous time frame, and self-administered polls) that is commonly criticized.

As far as your post, the CONTEXT (There’s that all important concept of CONTEXT again!) was that surreptitious including of all sort of other events, merging them with sexual assault, and then suggesting that the aggregate represents only “sexual assault” rates is disingenuous. That is intellectual dishonesty, repugnant and unworthy of serious consideration. M.G. How already described this to you. His exact words being:

…“Your citations conflate sexual offences with physical offences. So, they’re basically rolling almost all criminal reports and all military casualty reports and all worker casualty reports and all ‘unreported’ reports of abuse from DV shelters across all countries into one mean for women.”…

Specifically, your argument is based on falsehood and does not support the typically elevated rates that neo-feminist use to play victim. As support for the numbers H.G. How stands behind, he used, in CONTEXT, the rates in Canada (as it represents a First World Nation).

Hence, whether he specifies CANADIAN women or not is irrelevant, again, since the example of CANADA is used to represent a FIRST WORLD environment. One cannot really use the rates of Third World nations since lobbying for social and legislative reform in the FIRST WORLD does not directly (or really even indirectly address) any Third World situation. Being an “example” does not percolate across oceans and borders. To suggest that he “didn’t mention Canada” is irrelevant and does not reduce the impact of the figures he presents.


Krantz, you are proving to be quite inadequate as a challenger to most of those you oppose on this thread. It is certain that your deceitful tactics often work in arenas frequented by children and those who are gullible, but they don’t work in the company of anyone with any experience or skill in logical deduction. Your rapid descent into personal attacks, feigned belief of victory (complete with paper-thin bravado), and grade school taunting is proof that you do realize that you are wrong, but are evidently far from mature enough to admit defeat. As was promised, the complete destruction of your credibility would be the penalty of your continued harassment. Believe whatever you want. Beat your chest and claim superiority at infinitum. No one believes you or will trust your word here, or anywhere where people are made aware of your behavior here.


2 Comments Add yours

  1. M.G. How says:

    You should have waited a bit longer to see my response.

  2. M.G. How says:

    He and I replied once more. This time with a big one. I’d love to hear your commentary on it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s