I have so many weird, messed up fetishes... but the internet is a good place for that

[petite]

I've shown that there are anarcha feminists who believe exactly what TheRob says. I've traced the history back a century for you because you were interested. I told you that such protesters had indeed visited my university and that they are relatively rare.

At no time did I attempt to "prove that TheRob's opinion that he disrespects feminists because he's seen them march against women's suffrage is a point that you wish to debate with me". I know I didn't attempt to prove that because the phrase doesn't make sense, but I'm going to assume that you think I'm supporting TheRob's lack of respect. I have on two separate occasions stated that I disagree with TheRob's lack of respect, so I fail to see how you think I'm supporting his position in that manner.

What I have proven with multiple citations and references is that there are feminists who are anti-suffrage and that they exist in contemporary times. Why did I prove this? Because you stated you didn't believe such people existed and asked for proof. I gave it to you. Beyond that I haven't made a single claim.

So again, why are you going off on me when I'm providing you with information that you asked for? It is incredibly rude to attack someone providing neutral information, especially when they're agreeing with you.

First of all, I'm not attacking you. Secondly, how are you agreeing with me?

I never asked L_egit for proof that anyone ever claiming to be a feminist was against suffrage.

I asked TheRob for proof that he's seen women so stupid that they marched aginst suffrage because they didn't understand the meaning of the word. I'm sorry, but I still don't believe that, unless he's actually over a century old and he's talking about a tiny group of women he saw as a child protesting against a much larger group of feminists. That's my point.

None of your points support mine. All of them are off the topic and give TheRob's claim more credence.

I believe I'm just showing a healthy and normal skepticism of a skeptical story. When there are protesters, there are news articles. I asked for one.

You're the one who decided to argue with me (when I was talking to TheRob) by bringing up one anarcha-feminist who was against suffrage, Emma Goldman who died in 1940. I accept that Emma Goldman was anti-suffrage, but who else? Enough women all at once for a march? Oh yeah, except Emma Goldman knew the meaning of the word suffrage...

TheRob isn't arguing that some intelligent women take up extremist causes. His point is that he thinks feminists are too stupid to understand the meaning of the word "suffrage." I'm arguing with him. You're arguing with me.

Look, I don't want to fight with you. I enjoy a lot of your posts. They're usually very good.

 

[L_egit]

You originally said this:

Okay, there are lots of different kinds of feminists, but I've never heard of feminists who march for having the right to vote taken away from women. Mighty strange feminists you know. I don't believe those are called feminists at all.

Which I replied to.
Which prompted you to ask me this:

So you know of these feminists that TheRob is talking about?

So yes, you did ask me. And I did explain. And no, telling you about anti-suffrage feminists doesn't mean that TheRob is right to disrespect feminists. Let me explain why my posts don't support what he's saying:

TheRob's argument looks a bit like this: [Anti-suffragist feminists exist], [thus I don't respect feminism!]
He has a premise and a conclusion. The problem with his argument is that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. To illustrate this, here's an example:

[The sky is blue], [thus nighttime is evil for not being blue!]. Here the premise is true, like TheRob's premise, but the conclusion is false. It doesn't even make sense! The problem is that the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premise!

I affirmed that yes, TheRob's statement about anti-suffragist feminists was true (the premise), but that such a position doesn't lead to disrepect (the conclusion). You seem to have gotten caught up on the idea that if his premise was true that his conclusion was true too, but I was attacking the link between the two while giving historical information to show how the premise doesn't create the conclusion.

So yes, we were agreeing that feminism should be respected and I answered your question about the anti-suffragist feminists. If you weren't being snarky with me, I apologize; the internet leaves out all those important verbal cues and makes it hard to communicate.

 

[petite]

You originally said this:

Which I replied to.
Which prompted you to ask me this:


So yes, you did ask me. And I did explain. And no, telling you about anti-suffrage feminists doesn't mean that TheRob is right to disrespect feminists. Let me explain why my posts don't support what he's saying:

TheRob's argument looks a bit like this: [Anti-suffragist feminists exist], [thus I don't respect feminism!]
He has a premise and a conclusion. The problem with his argument is that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. To illustrate this, here's an example:

[The sky is blue], [thus nighttime is evil for not being blue!]. Here has the premise is true, like TheRob's premise, but the conclusion is false. It doesn't even make sense! The problem is that the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premise!

I affirmed that yes, TheRob's statement about anti-suffragist feminists was true (the premise), but that such a position doesn't lead to disrepect (the conclusion). You seem to have gotten caught up on the idea that if his premise was true that his conclusion was true too, but I was attacking the link between the two while giving historical information to show how the premise doesn't create the conclusion.

So yes, we were agreeing that feminism should be respected and I answered your question about the anti-suffragist feminists. If you weren't being snarky with me, I apologize; the internet leaves out all those important verbal cues and makes it hard to communicate.

Oh good grief, I meant literally, "do you know these feminists by name because you have met them and were there seeing this protest march," not "do you have historical knowledge" of such feminists.

Re-read TheRob's posts. TheRob is talking about personal experience IRL, not Emma Goldman.

I don't believe that your premise supports his conclusion, but I understand how faulty logic operates. I heard what you meant, by my understanding of how other people think also made me hear what others would conclude from the discussion. I was on a jury once, and the expert testimony gave provided a perfectly logical explanation supported by plenty of evidence, but once we got into the jury room, I quickly understood that most of the other jurors did not understand it and came to the wrong conclusion from his testimony. What good was his explanation of his perfect logic when so many people failed to come to the perfectly logical conclusion he was attempting to lead them towards? Most people are not perfectly logical and the defense had done a good job of muddying the water with irrelevant information that led the jury astray. I try to communicate using that concept as my guide. Don't muddy the water, people are easily led astray.

 

[L_egit]

I don't normally walk into radical feminist protest marches and ask for names and numbers, so no I don't know any protestors by name. L. Susan Brown, however, is a rather contemporary anarcha-feminist that I think would fit the bill of what you're asking.

I can't read your mind, I answered your question as asked. Sorry if that wasn't what you wanted.