I’m suddenly less comfortable with my balloon imagery.
So, when you make a sarcastic comment, it is a sarcastic comment, but when I respond in kind, you are unable to discern the sarcasm. I am not surprised.
Your failure of logic remains.
The word “bad” does not appear anywhere in the post by jsgoddess. You introduced the word and then claimed it for yourself.
If a poster said “I don’t care if you’re a patriot. I care that I’m a patriot and my husband is a patriot. I think that patriotism is a good thing, so sure, I’m generally supportive of good people identifying as patriotic.” no one but a fool or someone looking for a fight would conclude from that that the poster was claiming that their correspondent was unpatriotic. If one has to insert words into a discussion in order to claim an accusation, one’s logic is irredeemably flawed.
Fair enough - a hate movement has to have someone to hate, after all. I had supposed that reasons I should be a feminist would be reasons any man or woman should be a feminist, but if you insist that some people (or perhaps just me) shouldn’t be a feminist, I’m just as interested in reasons why someone who should be a feminist should be a feminist. Unless you don’t have any of those either?
Good for you. It’s probably what distracted you from the other, more obvious, contextual use of the word ‘impotent’.
Jack, if you run bigger than a US size 14, I’ll have to do some digging. But there are some awfully cute numbers here.
Would you like to persuade me that my chosen, non-obvious definition of the word isn’t the right one?
See my earlier comments about this use of the word ‘so’ (as in “So, you’re this strawman are you? Ahah!”)
Once again, I’ve overestimated my audience. That’s the third time, I must try harder to remember that some people need things spelled out in very simple terms.
It has nothing to do with logic. You may certainly argue that my inference was poor (although I don’t think it was).
It’s the contextual opposite of ‘good’, which did appear. ‘Bad’ was not spelled out, in simple terms, you’re right. It was inferred, as demonstrated.
Well I came for a discussion, but you’d be right that there does seem to be a ‘fight’. You’d be wrong that I was looking for one, though I’m happy to bat back those attacks that have been the favoured approach of several posters. The ‘fight’ you think I was “looking for” was well underway by the time of the post you quote - you must surely recall? You’d thrown a few (metaphorical!) punches yourself, and I’d called you out on your poor posting behaviour.
I’m no fool either, though I can excuse the fallacy of judging someone by the company they’re keeping…
I think I spot a flaw in the ‘logic’ of that remark…but I also think we have very different understandings of the word. You seem to be using it as a generic insult, with no more meaning than “If you use inference to draw a reasonable conclusion, then your ideas are stupid you poopyhead”. Not that you used all of those words, of course… :rolleyes:
And I am a feminist because I support the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men. That definition is sufficient to persuade me. I have no concerns if it does not persuade you.
Considerably bigger, alas - I’m not sure I’d ever truly have a use for a pair, but one likes to have the illusion of choice, at least.
That persuades me to be an egalitarian. It’s all the quacking and the eggs that put me off.
Oh, one last thing:
That you persist in chiding people for their “poor posting behavior” while contributing your own share of personal attacks speaks volumes about your willingness to actually have a reasonable discussion.
I think it would be off-topic, leaving aside that you’re asking me to persuade you that I wasn’t really claiming that your anger couldn’t get an erection. You’re free to think that I believe an abstract emotion has external genitalia capable of tumescence, if it pleases you.
Ah. I reckon the square-cube law would obviate the possibility of heels, or even decent strappy pumps for a guy your size, alas. Shame, that. But your ankles ought to be grateful.
Ahh! It was inferred, not implied. And since inference is the responsibility of the reader, not the author, you are still simply going out of your way to pick a fight that was not offered.
Do you promise?
I chided one person for poor posting behaviour, and that for repeatedly egregious personal insults by an ‘off-duty’ moderator. ‘Persist’ is not quite the right word, anymore than ‘people’. I don’t believe what you quoted was a personal attack - merely an observation, though it was less charitably phrased than I might use in a different environment. It wouldn’t be accurate to say I tolerate fools badly, though I have less patience for fools who think themselves cleverer than they are.
Countdown to that being reflected back at me…3…2…
There is no evidence in this thread that you have ever drawn a reasonable conclusion based on your inferences.
Well played, sir. Even as I was typing I was thinking ‘do I mean inferred, or implied?’ I meant implied, but you have your win. Treasure it 
I’d question the misuse of logic in assuming that the implication was not there, since you’re not the author, but that would make me a sore loser. You won!
A bold claim, and of course one that can’t be supported by evidence - well, I suppose you could quote the entire thread, but that would be redundant. As an unsupportable claim, it amounts to a carnival-barking balloon game with creepy prizes (I expect someone will take you to task too, for that sort of thing) and, of course, its primary purpose is as a personal attack. You keep making them, I’ll “persist” in “chiding” you for them.
Oh no?
And also, just for funsies:
Fortunately, this sentiment is not share by everyone. Or so I’d infer, you clever large-footed man, you.
Feel free to scroll up. You critique my standards for evidence, I ask you what claims you’re referring you, you never say, then you take a third or fourth shot at my “standards of evidence”, apropos of nothing in that post. It remains baffling.
I simply lack the information necessary to make a judgment. You’ve said very little about your beliefs, other than criticisms of what you perceive feminism to be.
Yes, harassment can be indicative of hatred.
Example of violent protests?
Harassment that’s based on threats of rape and murder is, in fact, hatred. So is all this.
Then there’s “robust criticism” that amounts to the level of, say, this:
But, that’s not hatred, granted, just poor debate.
Evidently so, your post in reply snipped the summation in half and somehow concluded I was saying that you should be a feminist because I was. Here it is again:
Feminism works. It seeks what you claim to want, and has shown a remarkable ability to achieve it. People organized under the mantle of feminism have made real, lasting progress toward gender equality. Can you and yours say the same?
Was this cite ever provided? I am curious, having had history courses in college, and my understanding that in this country, at least, the suffragettes fought for the right of women to vote. I apologize if the cite was provided and I missed it.