Jasper van Heycop said:
Not disagreeing with your points here (I mostly agree actually) but might I say that your profile name scares the fuck out of me? I really hope there is some ironic context I'm missing...?
Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy of the Ubermensch was usurped and perverted by the Axis during World War II if that's what you're referring too. It was Nietzsche's opinion that man had outgrown god, and could build upon themselves, and as such, if you had out grown god, you had outgrown any privileges or hindrances that birth had given. Each man was his own man and had a duty to become or support the Ubermensch, the Over man, the Transhuman if you will. He looked down on racial supremacists, saying that if he had his way they would be culled from the earth.
Perhaps something got lost in translation?
Phrozenflame500 said:
I never understood this argument, because it isn't really an argument. You're agreeing sexualization of violence against women is bad, but then you sting in something about men for some reason. Men's Right is not the opposite of woman's rights, having bad stuff on the men's side doesn't justify bad stuff on the woman's side.
I did say as much, but I don't think I clarified. So what I'll do instead is give you an anecdote in an attempt to explain my reasoning behind this argument.
There was a girl I liked, we were seeing each other a bit, but we hadn't done anything. I, at the time, considered her a smart girl, she could hold a conversation about my interests which she ended up sharing, and argue back.
So long story short pant comes off and she starts freaking out because I'm not circumcised, I didn't know there was an issue with this, I mean, I knew that uncircumcised men could carry the fungi that cause cervical cancer, but that's a hygiene thing... And I clean...
Now I really liked this girl so I considered having a circumcision, so I looked into it. I not only found out that I was right, but the actual removal of the foreskin causes nerve death resulting in a reduction of sensitivity. I presented, a person that I thought was a logical thinking person that I adored mind you, citations about this.
She was not interested in hearing it, resulting in an argument. This repeated as I talked to others. Now to me this is akin to vaginal mutilation which is openly discussed and universally condemned, and penis mutilation is institutionalised.
This has parallels to female on male rape, which my mother denied ever happening until I showed her news reports which she dismissed.
I'm making a criticism of the feminist movement in general, where "You go girl" is the cry of the audience involving a woman wielding a knife and a man and his toger. I'm saying it's hypocritical to call foul when cohort 1 wrongs cohort 2 but to say nothing or even cheer when cohort 2 does something comparable to cohort 1.
Pet peeve of mine, that isn't what a Strawman Argument is, the author isn't misrepresenting the opposing argument, he's just using faulty evidence for his own argument.
You are quite correct, I was in rant modo. I meant logical fallacy in the form of cherry picking data or "Bias Confirmation"... I think.
I of course used Anecdotal Evidence, but I argue that I use that to show where my personal opinion comes from and leave it there for people to agree or disagree with.
