The Feminine Perspective against the Manosphere

?

?!..!?

Well-known member
mixed_biscuits said:
Of course 2) can be false while 1) is true (which it isn't) as actions could be 'essential' (itself undefined!)
Click to expand...
How could an action be essential? That makes no sense. So you're saying there are some actions all women must perform and they all perform it in the same way? Can you give an example?
 
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
malelesbian said:
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.
Click to expand...
What is this 'evidence' other than hand-waving? The whole thing is 'trust me, bro'
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
malelesbian said:
Totally false. A good argument is SOUND. It's premises and conclusion are all true and the argument is valid. Your claims about clarity have nothing to with the evalutation of arguments, only the evaluation of style. But I don't care about style. I care about ideas. Butler's ideas are true. If you want to argue against them, you'll abandon this silly sophistry about presentation. Show me a single unsound argument she makes, I dare you.

Yes, because you never read Butler.

I don't care. Most people who say that have never read them, much less understood them. Besides , why does the quality of their writing matter? Their arguments and ideas are good, that's what matters. Arguments about good or bad writing aren't relevant to philosophy. They're relevant to style guides and Composition 101 classes and such.


Nope. Sokal's arguments all sucked, and I can explain to you in detail why if you cite them. Sokal's work has almost no merit as a criticism of continental philosophy and almost everyone who actually understands postmodernism knows he's wrong.


This isn't even true by the standards of Sokal's own argument. The point was never to show that "the whole enterprise" of Theory is worthless, only to show that better peer review practices are needed, i.e. that Theorists should consult actual scientists before they make claims about science. But Butler almost never makes claims about science so your argument here isn't even relevant to their work.
Click to expand...
Sokal didn't debunk "Theory" by arguments. He let the supposed guardians of the field debunk it themselves. So there is nothing to 'cite': the fact that the editors of Social Text took 'Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity' seriously speaks for itself.

And I have a hard time believing you're not simply on a massive trolling exercise here if you can say with a straight face that Butler's ideas are "true" - assertions, or some types of assertions, can be true or untrue, but it's not really a property that ideas can have - while implying that the number of people who can understand these ideas is irrelevant (maybe if almost no-one can understand your ideas then you just really suck at explaining them?) or that the quality of Butler's writing doesn't matter. This sounds like someone trying to force a friend to listen to some completely awful music because "the lyrics are amazing."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top