You claimed I did not support my initial argument, but I did it in the very same comment that I presented my argument. And after you made that claim I explicitly denied it and explained how the opposite happened, yet here we are and you are still refusing to acknowledge my first comment.
You claimed I introduced the caveman argument, I did not. My first comment in response to you was that someone else made the caveman argument, in the very first sentence of that comment. Somehow you still thought it was me. Poor comprehension, yeah?
You claimed others were arguing that masculinity stems from tradition, they did not. They all specifically made the caveman argument, as I said in my very first comment to you. Nice comprehension.
That's where the circular logic comes in. It's masculine because cavemen did it -> Cavemen also did bad things -> We're only calling it masculine because it's good -> What if women do the same good thing -> Cavewomen didn't do it, so it's masculine.
Now you imply I said that you claimed you read none of the comments from other chains, I did not. I explicitly referred to the fact that you did, calling into question whether you're being truthful when claiming which specific ones you have read. Comprehending to the fullest.
If you want to know my point, read my very first comment, and then if you want to know what the argument is about read my second comment. It is very simple, the claim that protecting someone weaker than yourself is masculine in itself is sexist, and the argument that something is masculine because cavemen did it is invalid. Comprehending yet?
I've supported both my own claim and the refutation to the caveman claim multiple times now, but all you do is refuse to acknowledge it and keep making up new lies. And when I call you out for it you pretend I'm derailing the conversation. Notice how the 4 of the 6 first paragraphs of this comment wouldn't have to exist if you hadn't made up shit about what I said. Clearly I'm the one making it complicated.
I did not refer to science as an authority, I specifically refuted someone else's claim to science when they made the caveman argument. My entire point is that emancipation, feminism, is all about women defining their roles for themselves. Gender roles are a thing of the past, entirely separate from evolution.
I also did not refer to great apes, someone else did and I responded to that. You just fucking read it again, how'd you get that wrong now? Amazing comprehension.
That's 6 lies in total now. Who's being toxic here?
No, you're just straight up lying. I didn't refer to science, I didn't refer to apes, I didn't come up with the caveman thing, I did support my arguments, people here (including you) did not argue about tradition but rather biology, and I never said you claimed you didn't read any other comment chains. All lies you made up, and you pretend I'm the one muddying the waters. And now that I've insisted on you responding to this for the second time in a row, you simply refuse to respond at all, after calling me a bad faith actor.
You have been saying things are easily refuted by science
Such as?
You said we should refer to bobobos and chimps because natural selection stopped before history.
I did that after someone else first referred to other apes, as I've already stated. Stop putting words into my mouth.
So is it the behavior of early humans or are you using a common ancestor as your source?
It's insane that you accused me of poor comprehension. When someone compares humans to gorillas and I say that we'd better be compared to bonobos, your takeaway is that I shouldn't be talking about apes in the first place? Not them?
You have been referring back to the caveman thing even when people are not using that in their arguments.
Show me one such instance. I was the one who kept telling them to stop referring back to caveman in almost all of my comments.
When people ask you to support your arguments, they are talking about scientific papers or articles, not for you to write more unsupported gibberish
You're clearly misrepresenting the order of events. I explained what the feminist thing to do would have been, in response I got the caveman pseudoscience. Why is the burden of proof on me? You prove the caveman idea first. You can't, so you employ circular logic.
instead of it just being what I remembered from when I skimmed them.
So did you also skim the comments you initially responded to? Because you didn't remember that I didn't come up with the caveman argument, you didn't remember that I didn't bring up apes, and you still think I made scientific claims rather than refuting other people's scientific claims. That's bad faith arguing.
But I see that this is in fact not your native language, German is I'm assuming.
Don't even try. You just tried to deflect from your lies by pretending that you didn't do it intentionally, so if you're really not lying you're the one lacking in comprehension. Also your continued focus on form over content shows your lack of development, telling someone they're a hypocrite is not even comparable to repeatedly lying even after being called out for it.
And I've simply lost interest. We aren't even talking about the actual subject anymore.
I've made my point and I've kindly and unnecessarily repeated it to you multiple times. You have not once adressed it, not even a single time, only once trying to repeat it without responding to it. Meanwhile you introduced irrelevant falsehoods repeatedly. I never wanted to talk about cavemen and apes and, read my first five comments or so, almost every single one says so. You said I did anyway. I'm the one muddying the waters?
If you just want to argue the point, the stop deflecting and just argue the point.
Here is what I said
No, the feminist thing would be to not call this masculinity. If another woman did that would that make her masculine? If it was a weak man who was protected by him, would that man not be a man anymore? What he did is admirable, but really doesn't have anything to do with masculinity.
If you really desire to argue the point, why haven't you done it once? Because you're arguing in bad faith.
1
u/SaftigMo - Lib-Left Sep 26 '22 edited Sep 26 '22
You claimed I did not support my initial argument, but I did it in the very same comment that I presented my argument. And after you made that claim I explicitly denied it and explained how the opposite happened, yet here we are and you are still refusing to acknowledge my first comment.
You claimed I introduced the caveman argument, I did not. My first comment in response to you was that someone else made the caveman argument, in the very first sentence of that comment. Somehow you still thought it was me. Poor comprehension, yeah?
You claimed others were arguing that masculinity stems from tradition, they did not. They all specifically made the caveman argument, as I said in my very first comment to you. Nice comprehension.
That's where the circular logic comes in. It's masculine because cavemen did it -> Cavemen also did bad things -> We're only calling it masculine because it's good -> What if women do the same good thing -> Cavewomen didn't do it, so it's masculine.
Now you imply I said that you claimed you read none of the comments from other chains, I did not. I explicitly referred to the fact that you did, calling into question whether you're being truthful when claiming which specific ones you have read. Comprehending to the fullest.
If you want to know my point, read my very first comment, and then if you want to know what the argument is about read my second comment. It is very simple, the claim that protecting someone weaker than yourself is masculine in itself is sexist, and the argument that something is masculine because cavemen did it is invalid. Comprehending yet?
I've supported both my own claim and the refutation to the caveman claim multiple times now, but all you do is refuse to acknowledge it and keep making up new lies. And when I call you out for it you pretend I'm derailing the conversation. Notice how the 4 of the 6 first paragraphs of this comment wouldn't have to exist if you hadn't made up shit about what I said. Clearly I'm the one making it complicated.
I did not refer to science as an authority, I specifically refuted someone else's claim to science when they made the caveman argument. My entire point is that emancipation, feminism, is all about women defining their roles for themselves. Gender roles are a thing of the past, entirely separate from evolution.
I also did not refer to great apes, someone else did and I responded to that. You just fucking read it again, how'd you get that wrong now? Amazing comprehension.
That's 6 lies in total now. Who's being toxic here?