Feminism, and being generalised into one group

[Chieftain Twilight]

Posties The Artificer

Chieftain Twilight

Posties The Artificer

The Willow Of Darkness

Posties The Artificer

He committed the no true scotsman fallacy. ie..There are bad feminists, but we don't consider them feminists.

"No true scotsman" is actually flawed as a fallacy. It equivocates two distinct positions as the same. The "Bad feminists," for example, are distinct from the feminists Twilight is talking about. They don't, with respect to the issues in question, agree with the feminists that Twilight identifies as rejecting them. And vice versa.

What...it's describing the flaw of excluding someone from a group because they don't fit into the persons subjective criteria of what should, as opposed to what does.

Also, not true=/= bad. He didn't say bad, he said true. The opposite of true is not bad, but false/not-true. The fallacy isn't flawed, you're just arguing from ignorance.

also,

Quote:

They don't, with respect to the issues in question, agree with the feminists that Twilight identifies as rejecting them. And vice versa.

Not a sufficient conclusion. Two people rejecting each others opinions doesn't support the argument that false feminism isn't feminism.

Bad/Good feminism would be two sub-categories. True, and false feminism is to discriminate and change the criteria that is already definite. Hence why we call the no true scotsman fallacy, the no true scotsman fallacy.

do you even read what you type? you aren't making sense at all, and your attacks aren't congruent with your arguments.

Quote:

do you even read what you type? you aren't making sense at all,

Personal incredulity.

Quote:

and your attacks aren't congruent with your arguments.

Begging the question. Remember when you implied you knew how academics work. Yeah, I remember that too.

that's not begging the question. and the above was not a personal attack, it was a critique of your senseless arguments. you have no idea what formal logic is, do you?

[Posties The Artificer]

The Willow Of Darkness

Posties The Artificer

What...it's describing the flaw of excluding someone from a group because they don't fit into the persons subjective criteria of what should, as opposed to what does.

Also, not true=/= bad. He didn't say bad, he said true. The opposite of true is not bad, but false/not-true. The fallacy isn't flawed, you're just arguing from ignorance.

But that is why it doesn't work. The group Twilight is talking about does reject the arguments of the "bad" or "untrue" feminists. Such a description is not mistaken. The two groups really are different. Twilight's description, insofar as the groups being different to each other, and not being what the other is saying, is true.

The fallacy is flawed. In any instance where someone points out how someone believes differently than them, and so does not reflect their beliefs, they will be right (the "bad" or "untrue" feminists, for example, could equally say Twilight was not a "feminist," as he does not fall under their definition of the word "feminist" ).

AND, you just broke the rule of non-contradiction. It doesn't work because it works. It either works, or doesn't works. You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.

[SirPuzzle]

The Willow Of Darkness

Yobyaxes N

If a lady gets raped then that's horrible, but there are still ways that women can prevent themselves from getting raped. Yeah, I said it, I "victim blamed" but that's because there is no telling a rapists not to do what he does because he's not going to care. It's too bad that feminists don't want to take responsibility for their own actions.

The "rape culture" arguments don't suggest rapists can be stopped by telling them not to do it. They advocate changing cultural approaches to sex such that rapists are prevented from existing in the first place. The idea of "teaching men not to rape," as it is reductively stated by its opponents, does not involve preventing rape by imploring rapists not to act. It is, instead, to shift culture away from one which considers men are entitled to sex by default (e.g. "players" ), to one where the primary concern is two consenting adults (i.e. thinking "do I have consent" and getting confirmation, rather than thinking: "MUST HAVE SEX" and just assuming any response bar: "NO NO NO *Fist to the balls* " is affirmative).

The entire reason why some men are called "players" is because they are commended by other men for the fact that they are successful at getting hot women to be attracted to them and have consensual sex with them.

Men who rape women or do not succeed at attracting women/having consensual sex with them aren't called players. Last I checked, when a man is found guilty of forcing women to have sex with him, there are not people calling him a "player".

So the part I underlined seems completely backwards to me. Men are called players precisely because of the perspective that men are not entitled to have sex with hot women, so being able to attract hot women and have consensual sex (because they succeed at getting the woman attracted to them) with them is the entire reason why they are called "players."

So men who are good at attracting women and getting them to have consensual sex with them is part of rape culture? That sounds contradictory to me "They are good at getting consensual sex with beautiful women, this is part of rape culture." Isn't that the opposite of rape culture because consensual sex is the opposite of rape?

[Yobyaxes N]

18randa

Yobyaxes N

18randa

Yobyaxes N

18randa

Yobyaxes N

Not really. I use to be a stupid Christian so you might want to cut down on the snark there.

You're a lost cause because you obviously think that everyone, and I mean everyone who calls them self a feminist is some anti-male tyrant. So sorry to tell you this again, but you're just like the feminazis.

Besides, I'm from a different country and don't have any control over what so called feminist organisations do, especially overseas.

Pretty much if you're going to believe in some mythical "patriarchy" that gives all men this imaginary superpower that I wish I had.

And I wonder what country you're from. Nevermind, you have an admiration for a country whose men are responding correctly to the evils of feminism infiltrating their shores.

And you're ignorance is proven once again by wanting to maintain it. Lovely.

Well I still like this obvious simple look at the dictionary definition of feminism and declaring it to be the end all be all of gender politics even though there's vast amounts of evidence that feminists interpretation of said "equality" comes in the form of blaming all men and silencing of any and all men's discussions on their issues.

Then by that definition, I should be able to say that I am a lawyer just because I want to represent someone in court as a lawyer (even though I have never studied any law degree or otherwise) because looking in the dictionary is now invalid according to you. So is there no place for dictionaries? Perhaps we should just have them taken out of schools and universities.

I find it really sad when you constantly use other women whom I don't even know of let alone remotely agree with me to represent me.

You must be like 15 or something, right?

Looking in the dictionary doesn't mean s**t if you're not practicing what you preach, which is the norm for feminists. But there are also words that you definitely should learn the definition to, like strawman, which is another word feminists don't know the meaning to.

And it's also funny how you claim I used other women to represent you when you could represent yourself and you'd be a textbook example of the typical feminist that I'm trying to prove my point about.

[Yobyaxes N]

18randa

Yobyaxes N

18randa

Yobyaxes N

GoneCrazyResurrected

It still amazes me how shallow college educated people can be "Hey I pointed to the dictionary and it said feminism is equality therefore feminism is for equality and anybody who disagrees with feminism is not for equality herpa derp." Flawless logic...........

This reasoning is just mindbogglingly uneducated and moronic to the point that I think by not explaining why this form of argumentation is retarded, it will naturally weed out the somewhat competent thinkers from the morons. People who are somewhat bright will realize that what the OP said is completely stupid, while the idiots will think that this form of argumentation is sound.

To be fair, the OP is 17 years old and while she told me she has a boyfriend, I translated the Japanese text in her profile and she claims to be a lesbian, which goes to show her obvious biased stance of gender politics.

Contradictory much?

I'm not actually 17 years old nor am I a lesbian, keep in mind that I have no had the time to update my profile in years because I have real life things such as school and work. Dude, sexuality fluctuates and that's just what mine did.

Aside from that, I commend you for being able to use google translate.

No time to update it but time for bickering on the forums? There's plenty of that.

You're the one bickering, I'm the one informing you and you're just staying ignorant. And why should I update it?

rolleyes

[The Willow Of Darkness]

Posties The Artificer

The Willow Of Darkness

Posties The Artificer

What...it's describing the flaw of excluding someone from a group because they don't fit into the persons subjective criteria of what should, as opposed to what does.

Also, not true=/= bad. He didn't say bad, he said true. The opposite of true is not bad, but false/not-true. The fallacy isn't flawed, you're just arguing from ignorance.

But that is why it doesn't work. The group Twilight is talking about does reject the arguments of the "bad" or "untrue" feminists. Such a description is not mistaken. The two groups really are different. Twilight's description, insofar as the groups being different to each other, and not being what the other is saying, is true.

The fallacy is flawed. In any instance where someone points out how someone believes differently than them, and so does not reflect their beliefs, they will be right (the "bad" or "untrue" feminists, for example, could equally say Twilight was not a "feminist," as he does not fall under their definition of the word "feminist" ).

AND, you just broke the rule of non-contradiction. It doesn't work because it works. It either works, or doesn't works. You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.

What are you talking about? I never suggested the fallacy worked. My point was, if the "bad" or "untrue" feminists were to claim Twilight was not a feminist, "no true scotsman" could not be applied to their argument either.

[Yobyaxes N]

GoneCrazyResurrected

The Willow Of Darkness

Yobyaxes N

If a lady gets raped then that's horrible, but there are still ways that women can prevent themselves from getting raped. Yeah, I said it, I "victim blamed" but that's because there is no telling a rapists not to do what he does because he's not going to care. It's too bad that feminists don't want to take responsibility for their own actions.

The "rape culture" arguments don't suggest rapists can be stopped by telling them not to do it. They advocate changing cultural approaches to sex such that rapists are prevented from existing in the first place. The idea of "teaching men not to rape," as it is reductively stated by its opponents, does not involve preventing rape by imploring rapists not to act. It is, instead, to shift culture away from one which considers men are entitled to sex by default (e.g. "players" ), to one where the primary concern is two consenting adults (i.e. thinking "do I have consent" and getting confirmation, rather than thinking: "MUST HAVE SEX" and just assuming any response bar: "NO NO NO *Fist to the balls* " is affirmative).

The entire reason why some men are called "players" is because they are commended by other men for the fact that they are successful at getting hot women to be attracted to them and have consensual sex with them.

Men who rape women or do not succeed at attracting women/having consensual sex with them aren't called players. Last I checked, when I man is found guilty of forcing women to have sex with him, there are not people calling him a "player".

So the part I underlined seems completely backwards to me. Men are called players precisely because of the perspective that men are not entitled to have sex with hot women, so being able to attract hot women and have consensual sex (because they succeed at getting the woman attracted to them) with them is the entire reason why they are called "players."

So men who are good at attracting women and getting them to have consensual sex with them is part of rape culture? That sounds contradictory to me "They are good at getting consensual sex with beautiful women, this is part of rape culture." Isn't that the opposite of rape culture because consensual sex is the opposite of rape?

Hey, I'd like to see you try to "debate" the OP. She's like Raggedy Man Goodbye.

[Posties The Artificer]

Chieftain Twilight

Posties The Artificer

Chieftain Twilight

Posties The Artificer

Chieftains just talking out his a**.

Quote:

but those people are not supported by the rest of the Feminist movement, and are by and large considered to not be Feminists.

BECAUSE THE LOVE OF MY LIFE IS A BANANA TREE! He committed the no true scotsman fallacy. ie..There are bad feminists, but we don't consider them feminists.

Then he pulls up some s**t about you missing the point, doesn't explain it. Then implies you don't understand the idealic motive of feminism.

Then this contradiction;

Quote:

I don't dismiss those extremists -- I actively oppose them, as do any true Feminist.

Take note of the word "true". Ad hoc language used to discriminate a people who don't meet his criteria of a feminist. ie..dismiss their perspective.

Quote:

we work hard to show a presence when we can. but people like you keep trying to shut us up, using the people you claim represent us as your excuse for it.

Feminists represent feminism. Radical feminists are feminists, not "not true" feminists. Sorry, you don't get to tell a group what represents a group either, as opposed to your implication of the former. If they meet the criteria, then they're a feminists.

blah, blah, blah. He say's you have no interest in the truth. Blah, blah, blah kettle logic.
Then this;

Quote:

If you lump us all into one group and call us X, I wonder how many other groups of people you generalise.

You are all X. Then this....shitty non-seqitur. Wondering that wouldn't add any more truth to what you're saying...

Quote:

See, that's it right there! You FORCE the label on other people! You need to FORCE people into your cause!
And my final question, what more do woman currently need in society?

Then post hoc..Just because you "force" a label on someone doesn't mean they are forced to do as the group says. LOL

Quote:

Feminism is named after women and ONLY protects Women. There are so many double standards a woman could pull.

What the ******** is a full blown retard. The etymology of a word doesn't influence the current arguments for the current position of the movement. He also implied that only women can be feminine...Nipsy proceeds to play the victim card.

Overall, all three of you are retards and provide no sufficient efforts in helping each other or what you support. Because you all did it poorly.

To everyone here, GENERALIZING ISN"T WRONG, or RIGHT. GOD DAMNIT PEOPLE.
Faulty generalizing is wrong, hasty generalizing is wrong, glimmering generalizations are wrong, sweeping generalizations are wrong. It's a ******** category, with many things to consider, that you don't when saying "yah wel generalizing es wong!!1112"

All water is water. Ooooooooooh, generalization. Ooooooooooo tautology. No ones lumping anyone who wasn't already in a certain group, in the certain group. Just how we don't lump people who use religion as a tool for controlling people out of being religious. Terrorists are still doing terrorism in the name of God, and people in here are trying to say "YEAH WELL WE DON"T CONSIDER THEM TERRORISTS! or THEY"RE NOT TRUE TERRORISTS!"

oh, I missed the "no true scottsman" argument. xd the return of the idiot, everyone.

alright, let's get this over with

the "no true scottsman" fallacy isn't even an academically recognized fallacy. it's basically the same as arguing "******** you, I'm a dragon". let's put it this way; a chinese man could claim to be spanish. but he's not spanish, he's still chinese. you aren't something just because you say you are. if you don't have the necessary and sufficient characteristics of the thing you are claiming to be, then your claim is a lie.

Feminists are those who seek equality between the genders. ergo, misandrists are not Feminists. end of.

Quote:

you aren't something just because you say you are.

and, that's not how the no true scotsman fallacy works. It's a type of ad hoc. BTW, you don't know s**t about the academia of logic. Otherwise you wouldn't argue like you don't know how informal logic works, or argue from authority and beg the question.

Also, you didn't argue my point.

Quote:

For instance, instead of proving that ‘this person has committed an atrocious fraud,’ you prove that ‘this fraud he is accused of is atrocious;’” … The nature of the fallacy, then, consists in substituting for a certain issue another which is more or less closely related to it, and arguing the substituted issue. The fallacy does not take into account whether the arguments do or do not really support the substituted issue, it only calls attention to the fact that they do not constitute a proof of the original one…

-Ignoratio elenchi

I can ******** cite my college Philosophy textbook if you like. point out every ******** mistake you are making. yo want to go that route?

If you knew how logic works, then you wouldn't have to be challenging me. Implying that evidence is a secret weapon. You don't even realize that you lost all of your arguments, and yet you continue to babble like you still have an ounce of soundness to your claims.

PLEASE GOD NO, DON"T QUOTE THAT BOOK! OH GOD HEAVENS EVERYONE HELP, HE"S GOING TO TRY AND PROVE HIS POINTS WITH ALLEGED EVIDENCE THIS TIME!

[Posties The Artificer]

The Willow Of Darkness

Posties The Artificer

The Willow Of Darkness

Posties The Artificer

What...it's describing the flaw of excluding someone from a group because they don't fit into the persons subjective criteria of what should, as opposed to what does.

Also, not true=/= bad. He didn't say bad, he said true. The opposite of true is not bad, but false/not-true. The fallacy isn't flawed, you're just arguing from ignorance.

But that is why it doesn't work. The group Twilight is talking about does reject the arguments of the "bad" or "untrue" feminists. Such a description is not mistaken. The two groups really are different. Twilight's description, insofar as the groups being different to each other, and not being what the other is saying, is true.

The fallacy is flawed. In any instance where someone points out how someone believes differently than them, and so does not reflect their beliefs, they will be right (the "bad" or "untrue" feminists, for example, could equally say Twilight was not a "feminist," as he does not fall under their definition of the word "feminist" ).

AND, you just broke the rule of non-contradiction. It doesn't work because it works. It either works, or doesn't works. You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.

What are you talking about? I never suggested the fallacy worked. My point was, if the "bad" or "untrue" feminists were to claim Twilight was not a feminist, "no true scotsman" could not be applied to their argument either.

I said the former..., you implied the opposite. Also, you're hedging, and completely ignored a part of what I said when I told you "untrue =/= bad"
Go back, re-read and stop trying to affirm your position instead of testing it.

[Chieftain Twilight]

Posties The Artificer

The Willow Of Darkness

Posties The Artificer

The Willow Of Darkness

Posties The Artificer

What...it's describing the flaw of excluding someone from a group because they don't fit into the persons subjective criteria of what should, as opposed to what does.

Also, not true=/= bad. He didn't say bad, he said true. The opposite of true is not bad, but false/not-true. The fallacy isn't flawed, you're just arguing from ignorance.

But that is why it doesn't work. The group Twilight is talking about does reject the arguments of the "bad" or "untrue" feminists. Such a description is not mistaken. The two groups really are different. Twilight's description, insofar as the groups being different to each other, and not being what the other is saying, is true.

The fallacy is flawed. In any instance where someone points out how someone believes differently than them, and so does not reflect their beliefs, they will be right (the "bad" or "untrue" feminists, for example, could equally say Twilight was not a "feminist," as he does not fall under their definition of the word "feminist" ).

AND, you just broke the rule of non-contradiction. It doesn't work because it works. It either works, or doesn't works. You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.

What are you talking about? I never suggested the fallacy worked. My point was, if the "bad" or "untrue" feminists were to claim Twilight was not a feminist, "no true scotsman" could not be applied to their argument either.

I said the former..., you implied the opposite. Also, you're hedging, and completely ignored a part of what I said when I told you "untrue =/= bad"
Go back, re-read and stop trying to affirm your position instead of testing it.

[The Willow Of Darkness]

Posties The Artificer

The Willow Of Darkness

Posties The Artificer

The Willow Of Darkness

Posties The Artificer

What...it's describing the flaw of excluding someone from a group because they don't fit into the persons subjective criteria of what should, as opposed to what does.

Also, not true=/= bad. He didn't say bad, he said true. The opposite of true is not bad, but false/not-true. The fallacy isn't flawed, you're just arguing from ignorance.

But that is why it doesn't work. The group Twilight is talking about does reject the arguments of the "bad" or "untrue" feminists. Such a description is not mistaken. The two groups really are different. Twilight's description, insofar as the groups being different to each other, and not being what the other is saying, is true.

The fallacy is flawed. In any instance where someone points out how someone believes differently than them, and so does not reflect their beliefs, they will be right (the "bad" or "untrue" feminists, for example, could equally say Twilight was not a "feminist," as he does not fall under their definition of the word "feminist" ).

AND, you just broke the rule of non-contradiction. It doesn't work because it works. It either works, or doesn't works. You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.

What are you talking about? I never suggested the fallacy worked. My point was, if the "bad" or "untrue" feminists were to claim Twilight was not a feminist, "no true scotsman" could not be applied to their argument either.

I said the former..., you implied the opposite. Also, you're hedging, and completely ignored a part of what I said when I told you "untrue =/= bad"
Go back, re-read and stop trying to affirm your position instead of testing it.

I did not imply the opposite. I stated, directly, that the fallacy doesn't work under any circumstance.

Whether we say "untrue"or "bad" doesn't matter here. Using either pejorative, the given groups are still holding different beliefs, and so cannot be equivocated to each other.

[SirPuzzle]

Yobyaxes N

GoneCrazyResurrected

The Willow Of Darkness

Yobyaxes N

If a lady gets raped then that's horrible, but there are still ways that women can prevent themselves from getting raped. Yeah, I said it, I "victim blamed" but that's because there is no telling a rapists not to do what he does because he's not going to care. It's too bad that feminists don't want to take responsibility for their own actions.

The "rape culture" arguments don't suggest rapists can be stopped by telling them not to do it. They advocate changing cultural approaches to sex such that rapists are prevented from existing in the first place. The idea of "teaching men not to rape," as it is reductively stated by its opponents, does not involve preventing rape by imploring rapists not to act. It is, instead, to shift culture away from one which considers men are entitled to sex by default (e.g. "players" ), to one where the primary concern is two consenting adults (i.e. thinking "do I have consent" and getting confirmation, rather than thinking: "MUST HAVE SEX" and just assuming any response bar: "NO NO NO *Fist to the balls* " is affirmative).

The entire reason why some men are called "players" is because they are commended by other men for the fact that they are successful at getting hot women to be attracted to them and have consensual sex with them.

Men who rape women or do not succeed at attracting women/having consensual sex with them aren't called players. Last I checked, when I man is found guilty of forcing women to have sex with him, there are not people calling him a "player".

So the part I underlined seems completely backwards to me. Men are called players precisely because of the perspective that men are not entitled to have sex with hot women, so being able to attract hot women and have consensual sex (because they succeed at getting the woman attracted to them) with them is the entire reason why they are called "players."

So men who are good at attracting women and getting them to have consensual sex with them is part of rape culture? That sounds contradictory to me "They are good at getting consensual sex with beautiful women, this is part of rape culture." Isn't that the opposite of rape culture because consensual sex is the opposite of rape?

Hey, I'd like to see you try to "debate" the OP. She's like Raggedy Man Goodbye.

Idk I think the what I call the "feminism dictionary definition" argument is so bad it does not merit a serious response. You have to pick your battles once in a while, and some arguments/people are so dumb it's just a waste of time to address them. I'm just speaking for myself of course.

Like I said in my original post semi-intelligent people will realize how shallow the feminism dictionary definition argument is. As far as I'm concerned, that's good enough for me.

Idiots will be idiots and there's always people who will be so shallow they don't ask basic and completely obvious questions like "Saying something is for equality begs the question...what is equality?" And what equality should look like in the context of gender politics is not a question that can be answered by just looking in a dictionary. It's a philosophical question that requires conceptual thought, which is why you know there's people called feminist philosophers for example. You know feminists who actually write about why what they believe is actually the essence of equality and they make conceptual/philosophical arguments. They don't just point to a dictionary and say "See therefore we're for equality."

Furthermore perhaps some people also believe in gender equality, but they disagree with fundamental empirical claims feminists make like "patriarchy theory" as their main explanation for why sexism exists (or maybe some other proposition feminists make, just pick any arbitrary one you like it doesn't ******** matter), and therefore these people reject the label "feminist" and reject feminism not because they are in favor of strict gender roles or anything feminists willy nilly accuse people of when someone disagrees with them, but because they disagree with certain propositions feminists make.

But of course conceptual thought actually takes a minimal amount of cognitive ability and curiosity, something that quite frankly is lacking by people who make such mind numbingly dumb arguments.

[Lamiroir]

That thread and this thread are bananas for entirely different reasons lol

[Posties The Artificer]

The Willow Of Darkness

Posties The Artificer

The Willow Of Darkness

Posties The Artificer

The Willow Of Darkness

Posties The Artificer

What...it's describing the flaw of excluding someone from a group because they don't fit into the persons subjective criteria of what should, as opposed to what does.

Also, not true=/= bad. He didn't say bad, he said true. The opposite of true is not bad, but false/not-true. The fallacy isn't flawed, you're just arguing from ignorance.

But that is why it doesn't work. The group Twilight is talking about does reject the arguments of the "bad" or "untrue" feminists. Such a description is not mistaken. The two groups really are different. Twilight's description, insofar as the groups being different to each other, and not being what the other is saying, is true.

The fallacy is flawed. In any instance where someone points out how someone believes differently than them, and so does not reflect their beliefs, they will be right (the "bad" or "untrue" feminists, for example, could equally say Twilight was not a "feminist," as he does not fall under their definition of the word "feminist" ).

AND, you just broke the rule of non-contradiction. It doesn't work because it works. It either works, or doesn't works. You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.

What are you talking about? I never suggested the fallacy worked. My point was, if the "bad" or "untrue" feminists were to claim Twilight was not a feminist, "no true scotsman" could not be applied to their argument either.

I said the former..., you implied the opposite. Also, you're hedging, and completely ignored a part of what I said when I told you "untrue =/= bad"
Go back, re-read and stop trying to affirm your position instead of testing it.

I did not imply the opposite. I stated, directly, that the fallacy doesn't work under any circumstance.

Whether we say "untrue"or "bad" doesn't matter here. Using either pejorative, the given groups are still holding different beliefs, and so cannot be equivocated to each other.

Repeating yourself doesn't make anything you say more true. So stop it, and argue my points, or s**t even your points. You won't ******** stop begging the question "WHY? WHY?"

[Chieftain Twilight]

Posties The Artificer

The Willow Of Darkness

Posties The Artificer

The Willow Of Darkness

Posties The Artificer

AND, you just broke the rule of non-contradiction. It doesn't work because it works. It either works, or doesn't works. You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.

What are you talking about? I never suggested the fallacy worked. My point was, if the "bad" or "untrue" feminists were to claim Twilight was not a feminist, "no true scotsman" could not be applied to their argument either.

I said the former..., you implied the opposite. Also, you're hedging, and completely ignored a part of what I said when I told you "untrue =/= bad"
Go back, re-read and stop trying to affirm your position instead of testing it.

I did not imply the opposite. I stated, directly, that the fallacy doesn't work under any circumstance.

Whether we say "untrue"or "bad" doesn't matter here. Using either pejorative, the given groups are still holding different beliefs, and so cannot be equivocated to each other.

Repeating yourself doesn't make anything you say more true. So stop it, and argue my points, or s**t even your points. You won't ******** stop begging the question "WHY? WHY?"

emotion_facepalm

that;s not begging the question. and she is arguing your points.