Why is it not persuasive? Give a counter argument.
The Feminine Perspective against the Manosphere
- Thread starter ?!..!?
- Start date
-
- Tags
- a bunch of trolls trolling each other aesthetic jihad chicks dig guys with money cia lesbian david lesbian do you tongue punch the dirt star? dolezal1977 eating pussy without asking everyone on this board is a troll extraterrestrial bisexual feminist travis bickle justified ancients of noncing lesbian separatism luka's crop top malelesbian: english rp boy toy malethespian mansplaining feminism mr tea confirmed pegging freak mrs tea eaten out 24/7 prevent prevent! sarlacc pit taking the filth the art of trolling the feminonce massive the perils of self-publishing the viper of cunnilingus undisciplined lockerroom pussy eating unimaginable anguish version's throbbing penis
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
I want the logical argument rather than the hand-waving or hand-waving-dressed-up-with-waffle
ghost
Well-known member
My phone died before I could post the followup to that post, and what I was going to emphasize was that we live in a society where there aren't a lot of concrete reasons one must be a little kinder to someone but a clear diagnostic category is one. This is true for others but it's also true in how a person thinks about themself. The distinction is like, does it matter if a categorization has been made to the question of whether it's a thing that matters.
You say that there's a splenium size or a norepinephrine difference, but when we talk about those things we talk about changes in distributions, so we really know nothing for sure about your splenium size. But I don't think we should change how we think about this based on splenium size.
Couldn't the reality of the suffering be enough?
huh? the argument is logical. The conclusion cannot be false while the premise is true. Until you provide a counter-argument, you have nothing.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
There is no reason given for that premise to be true, though
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
The argument is circular.
Can you provide an alternative definition of gender? An overwhelming amount of empirical evidence supports their claim that behavior defines gender actually.
Incorrect. A circular argument is one where the premises and the conclusion are the same. That is clearly not true of Butler's argument.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
The argument already fails because it's circular
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
It's just an assertion...a very contestable one at that!
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Anyway, this is rehashing earlier parts of the thread...all I want is a version of Butler's book which is optimally expressed, to confirm that it's poor.
I already explain why it's non-circular, try again.
So contest it...oh wait, you can't because it's supported by massive amounts of empirical facts.
And all I want is for you to actually read Butler...but I guess neither of us will get what we want.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
@malelesbian you're not being very persuasive...seriously, has no-one managed to extract a neatly formulated precis of Butler's contentions?
I just did.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
I wasn't aware that continental philosophy worked by weighing quantities of empirical facts against each other
Butler's version of it works like that!
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
To quote your summary:
(1) Actions define gender.
(2) Therefore, gender is non-essential.
2 is not entailed by 1 and 1 isn't justified
'Therefore' isn't the wave of the magic wand you think it is
(1) Actions define gender.
(2) Therefore, gender is non-essential.
2 is not entailed by 1 and 1 isn't justified
'Therefore' isn't the wave of the magic wand you think it is
Large amounts of evidence justify (1). Also your inability to provide an alternative to (1) justifies (1). (2) can't be false while (1) is true. So (1) entails (2). Unless you can explain to me how gender could be both performative AND essential?
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
What you're counting as 'evidence' assumes the conclusion...it's circular
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Of course 2) can be false while 1) is true (which it isn't) as actions could be 'essential' (itself undefined!)
I have no idea what you mean by this. I already explained why my argument is non-circular. And you had no response. The evidence supports the premise not the conclusion. The conclusion is just a logical inference drawn from the premise.