Almost a week ago, some troll posted on a video of Rebecca Watson discussing Anthropogenic Climate Change, a misdirected, and mistaken, critical insinuation having nothing to do with the topic, just calumniating her. I objected, and found this evening, a reply that just doubled down on his anti-feminist bigotry. I have been attempting to show him the fallacies in his thinking. I can’t expect him to change immediately as a result of this, but, as it happened with me, I might be planting some thoughts that could result in his … repentance. 😉
In our interchange, he demonstrates the Ad Hominem, Faulty Generalization, False Cause (Guilt by Association), and Post Hoc Ergo Prompter Hoc fallacies. He is also badly confused as to what Feminism and Sexism are.
Visits: 73
Keep on explaining feminism and the way it becomes humanism
OB
I’m somewhat puzzled by your challenge, since I had not begun to “explain… feminism”. This leaves me in doubt about your perception of reality. Since it seems to me that you are reading too much into my post, I suspect that you are not inviting me to do so in sincere curiosity, but, coupled with your other comment, that you wish to contend with me on this. And I am glad to accommodate you on this, but I despise deceptive behavior.
Of course, if I am misreading your attitude and intent, due to my own militancy, please, excuse my faux pas, and let me know.
On the second clause of your prodding*, I must explain that Feminism does not “become” Humanism. I see Feminism as a subset of Humanism, having a narrowed scope for the purpose of correcting imbalance in power between the subcultures of the respective sexes. I think a thoughtful Humanist ought to be a Feminist, also, because, trusting that the needs of humanity are, and ought to be, met through human effort, one should desire that “all hands be on deck” to provide the solutions that we need. Also, it simply seems fair; it fits my moral outlook.
For further information, I recommend reading and understanding the Wikipedia article on Feminism.