Because Trump lies constantly.
No, he doesn’t. Nobody lies 100% of the time. He lies A LOT, and it’s certainly disconcerting, but you cannot build an argument by assuming the opposite of what somebody said is true. The judge will throw you out of court in a heartbeat. It’s not logical.
Kind of like all this anti-feminist rhetoric, going around. Massive amounts of disinformation contained therein.
Without reference, this is simply opinion stated as fact. Basically, your argument is “It is beyond question that feminism is good. Therefore, anyone criticizing it is promoting misinformation.” That sounds much more like the reasoning of an “authoritarian regime“ than any other.
You have all these people flooding social media about how awful feminism is, in response to feminists getting on social media saying how wonderful it is…and it this point, all of it is beside the point because none of the dialogue matches or has anything to do with what is happening in reality. It’s just typing heads trying to make a point.
Basically, you’re arguing then that if what’s “happening in reality” is good, then the philosophical basis of a movement can be ignored.
Are you sure you want to die on that hill?
You need to consider:
82 percent of Americans don't consider themselves feminists, poll shows
It looks like most people are still allergic to the f-word. In a culture where feminism seems to be gaining momentum, a…
If only 18% of the people in the country are “pro-feminist”, then the burden of proof that feminism is positive force is on you. And you’re not succeeding, clearly.
And you’re wrong about Svetlana, she does use insults.
Read what I wrote carefully. I didn’t say she didn’t use insults. What she does is provide a factual counterpoint with documentation, then followed by a chortle at the lack of intellectual acumen of her opponent.
The pejoratives never outweigh the facts in her documented facts in her posts. From what you’ve posted so far, it seems you ignore her counterpoints and just react emotionally.
And if there exists a valid counterpoint, your complaining about the “Lincoln-Douglas Style” are basically void. I advise you to grow a thicker skin, ignore the jibes, and focus in on the debate, if you really want to have one. I am not convinced you actually do.
People like you for example. You’ve already made your mind up about feminism.
Long before I came on Medium. I actually read what the feminist thinkers were writing about how they wished to reorder society, and chose to have none of it. Because what they outlined would be a rather horrid future. It was simpler and more fulfilling to stand for equal rights.
All you want is to listen to people railing against it, so you can feel comfortable in your beliefs.
Ah; now that you’ve issued this lesson on proper debate style, you break your own rules by accusing me of a priori reasoning, and attacking my motives.
You want to live by logic? It’s a double edged sword.
Attacking the Motive: Fallacy Explanation & Examples | Study.com
Let's say that Dr. Walters is a climatology expert presenting data at a national conference on climate change. Mid-way…
Because that type of rhetoric acknowledges that there are two sides to EVERY story, and that BOTH sides have value and it is NEVER an all or nothing deal.
And now, a straw man argument. :-) You really are a sloppy thinker. And you should not be lecturing others on proper debate style when you refuse to adhere to it yourself.
Straw man - Wikipedia
As a fallacy, the identification and name of straw man arguments are of relatively recent date, although Aristotle…
As I said before, I watch Svetlana because she is very, very skilled at looking like she is using a formal debate structure, while at the same time corrupting it with far too much emotion, (but only when she gets frustrated.)
I think we’ve comfortably proven that you’re no authority on proper debate structure. :-)
She also likes to comment on a lot of divisive topics. You’re Muslim? So did you read her post about Islam providing nothing of value over the last 800 years?
I did not, but such a statement is directionally correct from a historical point of view. That was about the time the Islamic enlightenment period ended.
Islamic Golden Age - Wikipedia
The Islamic Golden Age is the era in the history of Islam, traditionally dated from the 8th century to the 13th century…
I challenged her on that, simply because such a statement is overbroad, and not likely to be true, no matter what is going on with Islam.
Well, historically, she was right, and you were wrong. Having not read her post, I cannot tell you if it was overbroad or not.
But what jumps out at me is that you “challenged her” apparently without even taking the time to do a very simple Google search which would have shown you that she was quoting history, not opinion.
That tells me that although you claim to be the Goddess of Logic, that you don’t use it yourself; you rely on either emotion or political correctness. Because it’s quite clear that the statement that “Islam hasn’t contributed in 800 years” would upset both emotional egalitarians and political correctness adherents…..despite the fact that it’s historically accurate.
Maybe you consider, just consider, that’s what you’re doing? And I don’t mean in any obvious intentional way. I mean for whatever reason people are comforted by the Trumps and Svetlanas of the world, when all they really provide are reasons to hate, and not much else. Why does that appeal to you? Think about it.
Be glad to. I disagree entirely with your diagnosis. You’ve simply found an explanation for contrarian logic and fact that doesn’t require you to self-evaluate your own views, even though you are being challenged to do so.
Hope that helps, but you seem like a very closed minded individual.