Ok guess I'm not queer then can't say I care. I guess I'm not attracted to any particular gender I just like clits
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
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
Ok guess I'm not queer then can't say I care
great, you're not a lesbian or male lesbian even. thread closed, you're just bewitched by genitals.
I'm a heterosexual femboy it's not hard to understand how bad is your memory I'm tired of repeating myselfgreat, you're not a lesbian or male lesbian even. thread closed, you're just bewitched by genitals.
I'm a heterosexual femboy it's not hard to understand
you're not heterosexual though. if you were heterosexual, you would be attracted to pre-op transwomen.
Again that's a terf argument nontransamourous straight people exist it's not controversialyou're not heterosexual though. if you were heterosexual, you would be attracted to pre-op transwomen.
Again that's a terf argument nontransamourous straight people exist it's not controversial
Correct, it's a terf argument, but you're not non-transamourous, because if you were, you wouldn't be attracted to pre-op transmen.
Ok so I'm a femboy who is attracted to clits and vaginasCorrect, it's a terf argument, but you're not non-transamourous, because if you were, you wouldn't be attracted to pre-op transmen.
Ok so I'm a femboy who is attracted to clits and vaginas
You've contradicted yourself at least three times in the last two pages. this is what happens when you base your whole philosophical outlook on the gaze and significations, and abandon the dialectical method. job well done!
Pointing out inconsistencies in an argument is exegetical scorekeeping and thus a bad argument. Surely a dialectician should understand that people can correct their mistakes. Also I criticize the male gaze frequentlyYou've contradicted yourself at least three times in the last two pages. this is what l when you base your whole philosophical outlook on the gaze and significations, and abandon the dialectical method. job well done!
Pointing out inconsistencies in an argument is exegetical scorekeeping and thus a bad argument.
Surely a dialectician should understand that people can correct their mistakes. Also I criticize the male gaze frequently
I told how to correct your mistakes, but you don't want to. and you keep mentioning exegetical scorekeeping as if it's some trumpcard, but without said exegetical scorekeeping, philosophy would not progress, no matter what certain academic philosophers say.
and, btw, I'm not talking about the male gaze but the mechanical, empiricist gaze of the 18th century.
No you didn't? How do I correct my mistakes I want to knowI told how to correct your mistakes, but you don't want to.
Do you have any evidence of this? Also almost all philosophers reject exegetical scorekeeping.and you keep mentioning exegetical scorekeeping as if it's some trumpcard, but without said exegetical scorekeeping, philosophy would not progress, no matter what certain academic philosophers say.
How are you going to do materialist science if you reject mechanisms and empiricism? Also organisms are more important to my view than mechanismsand, btw, I'm not talking about the male gaze but the mechanical, empiricist gaze of the 18th century.
No you didn't? How do I correct my mistakes I want to know
First you must start from negativity: 'there is no such thing as a sexual relationship.' Once you start from the lack, you can work to defining what it is, rather than immediately starting as I am xyz.
Do you have any evidence of this? Also almost all philosophers reject exegetical scorekeeping.
no they didn't, not up until Hegel. your knowledge of philosophy is solely restricted to the 20th century, when philosophy had become outmoded. you have no conception of how philosophy developed, you're just trapped in friendly philosophers vs enemy philosophers.
How are you going to do materialist science if you reject mechanisms and empiricism? Also organisms are more important to my view than mechanisms
I don't reject mechanisms and empiricism, think you're confusing me with biscuits. I'm just able to see them in their inter-relation.
But I do start with negation. Femininity negates masculinity. My view presupposes lacan. What do u think It means that there's no sexual relationshipFirst you must start from negativity: 'there is no such thing as a sexual relationship.' Once you start from the lack, you can work to defining what it is, rather than immediately starting as I am xyz
Uh no I am a legitimate historian of philosophy. Trained and everything. You love to exaggerate your credentials. Why don't you give one example of a good exegetical scorekeeping argument In the history of philosophyno they didn't, not up until Hegel. your knowledge of philosophy is solely restricted to the 20th century, when philosophy had become outmoded. you have no conception of how philosophy developed, you're just trapped in friendly philosophers vs enemy philosophers.
As am I idk why u think I cantI don't reject mechanisms and empiricism, think you're confusing me with biscuits. I'm just able to see them in their inter-relation.
But I do start with negation. Femininity negates masculinity. My view presupposes lacan. What do u think It means that there's no sexual relationship
Yes, you start with the negation, but not the negation of the negation. Even femininity as traditionally understood can be negated to a higher form by genderfluidity, or feminine men. What you fail to see is that rather than femininity negating masculinity, the negation per individuals will still mean the masculine still exists within opposition, either constitutive and defining of, or that to be against.
`
Uh no I am a legitimate historian of philosophy. Trained and everything. You love to exaggerate your credentials. Why don't you give one example of a good exegetical scorekeeping argument In the history of philosophy
you're not though, when I asked you about duns scotus' univocity of being you started floundering like a fish out of water.
This is all interesting I just don't see how this is a criticism of my viewYes, you start with the negation, but not the negation of the negation. Even femininity as traditionally understood can be negated to a higher form by genderfluidity, or feminine men. What you fail to see is that rather than femininity negating masculinity, the negation per individuals will still mean the masculine still exists within opposition, either constitutive and defining of, or that to be against.
I admit I never studied medieval philosophy thats my only blind spot I want to study it thoughyou're not though, when I asked you about duns scotus' univocity of being you started floundering like a fish out of water.
Right but that seems consistent with my viewthe true import of 'there is no such thing as a sexual relationship' is that ultimately, men and women don't exist as hypostatised entities. they only exist in their relaytion to each other, the other defines its other.