What Are Your Thoughts on Intersectional Veganism?

[Red]

Note: I refrained from reading brimstone's and Spellbinder's response before I wrote this. I didn't steal any of their arguments!

I love how teenagers are telling me I am doing logical fallacies by.... not really explaining any logical fallacies. "Love the ad-hominems" telling someone to grow up or that they are too young to understand properly is not an ad hominem.

Okay, then explain what is an ad hominem if you're so smart?

"Just because she is younger than you does not mean" I am sorry, but if Michael Greger or Richard Dawkins was 14, would you listen to them? No? Didn't think so. Because it is universal that people with almost no experience in a field is not a credible messenger of information in that field, which is why a PhD is more credible than a Bachelors.

You base an argument on it's own merits jackass, not from who it's coming from.

If a 14 year old can give a claim, and properly defend it, then you should at least acknowledge their claim. Hell, a 2 year old (if they can speak) can give an insane, out of this world claim, but if they can defend it, they are potentially raising up a point for consideration. You don't just dismiss someone due to their age. That in itself is an ad hominem! Heck, a Christian can say that they can prove the existence of their God, and if they bring some good arguments to the table, they may be on to something, chief. Hell, for me at least, if Stephen Hawking came out with an argument, I would like to see the evidence first, then I would take his word for it.

"That's not an accurate correlation" yes it is.

I didn't say accurate, I said you couldn't correlate it. And even so, how is it? You just make the claim and then move on. You provided 0 arguments. Why should I take your word for it?
Not to mention that there are some atheists that do doubt evolution, FYI.

"Just because your atheist doesn't man you're ration" obviously not, just look at EquALLity as proof of that.

And you're exhibit B.

I LOVE it when people try to retort against me and say absolutely nothing in several paragraphs

*Trying to suppress laughter*

that shows me to be wrong. Then again, I am just a bigot against myself, what do i know?

Hm. Good question.. uh.. I'm not too sure.

[garrethdsouza]

I have not seen too many people say that there are no good feminists ever, the only exception might be GirlSaysWhat, but aside from a few people, most "anti-feminists" are 100% pro gender equality, and pro feminism when it comes to allowing women in Saudi Arabia to drive cars, and wear whatever they want, and be able to get an education, as with the case of support for Malala Yousafzai by most "anti-feminists." The second part being yet another strawperson, which is the sort of thing one hears from chs followers and why I suggested reading criticisms of her and what the other side is about and then making your decision.

It's like veganism. Most people are OK with someone who calls for a reduction of animal suffering and refuses to eat meat, but the modern feminist movement is equivalent to the vegans who yell at restaurants who don't serve vegan options, send them death threats, and march into a steak house while you are eating and yelling at people for being complacent in animal murder and the consumption of animal flesh and by-products. Much of modern feminism is equivalent to the vegan who runs around and calling carnists "flesh-eating udder-suckers," or the like.

If you actually talk to anti-feminists, you will know what they are really against. And yes, a few feminists are outspoken against the "men earn 77 cents for every dollar a man makes!" type of BS, but to be honest, we are not vocal enough.

I already addressed most of this before. The first paragraph about the attempt to deflect attention elsewhere ie the third world (which anyways the third wave feminists are doing, so its ironical) and in doing so helps people to ignore/deny the current problems women are facing in the first worl that is based on the sociological research.

I also addressed the wage gap in the Wikipedia and everydayfeminism articles which link to the research on what it is and why it's important.

[garrethdsouza]

I regulary read comments, that all men are potential rapists and we should be treated as such.

I already addressed this before, just adding this comic which is pretty explanatory about what the potential rapist issue means. http://www.robot-hugs.com/risky-date/
And a shout out for this pretty informative comic - robot hugs

[ThatNerdyScienceGirl]

I have not seen too many people say that there are no good feminists ever, the only exception might be GirlSaysWhat, but aside from a few people, most "anti-feminists" are 100% pro gender equality, and pro feminism when it comes to allowing women in Saudi Arabia to drive cars, and wear whatever they want, and be able to get an education, as with the case of support for Malala Yousafzai by most "anti-feminists." The second part being yet another strawperson, which is the sort of thing one hears from chs followers and why I suggested reading criticisms of her and what the other side is about and then making your decision.

It's like veganism. Most people are OK with someone who calls for a reduction of animal suffering and refuses to eat meat, but the modern feminist movement is equivalent to the vegans who yell at restaurants who don't serve vegan options, send them death threats, and march into a steak house while you are eating and yelling at people for being complacent in animal murder and the consumption of animal flesh and by-products. Much of modern feminism is equivalent to the vegan who runs around and calling carnists "flesh-eating udder-suckers," or the like.

If you actually talk to anti-feminists, you will know what they are really against. And yes, a few feminists are outspoken against the "men earn 77 cents for every dollar a man makes!" type of BS, but to be honest, we are not vocal enough.

I already addressed most of this before. The first paragraph about the attempt to deflect attention elsewhere ie the third world (which anyways the third wave feminists are doing, so its ironical) and in doing so helps people to ignore/deny the current problems women are facing in the first worl that is based on the sociological research.

I also addressed the wage gap in the Wikipedia and everydayfeminism articles which link to the research on what it is and why it's important.

Modern feminists are doing very little to help women in third world countries. They can help a lot more by NOT giving money to charlatins like Anita Sarkeesian and dumb campaigns like Ban Bossy, and ignore fake statistics, like the Wage Gap, and focus more of the time and money preventing female rape victims from being stoned to death. Then again, this is not as important as Manspreading and boobs in videogames, as seen by even the cursory glance at the search results of the most popular feminist websites and blogs, including Everyday Feminism, Feministing, and the like.

I love how you say "research" and then link to EverydayFeminism as a source. How about I think to a source?

However, despite these gains the raw wage gap continues to be used in misleading ways to
advance public policy agendas without fully explaining the reasons behind the gap. The purpose
of this report is to identify the reasons that explain the wage gap in order to more fully inform
policymakers and the public.

The following report prepared by CONSAD Research Corporation presents the results of a
detailed statistical analysis of the attributes that contribute to the wage gap and a synopsis of the
economic research that has been conducted on the issue. The major findings are:
There are observable differences in the attributes of men and women that account for most of the
wage gap. Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively
account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and
thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent. These variables
include:

A greater percentage of women than men tend to work part-time. Part-time work tends to
pay less than full-time work.

A greater percentage of women than men tend to leave the labor force for child birth, child
care and elder care. Some of the wage gap is explained by the percentage of women who
were not in the labor force during previous years, the age of women, and the number of
children in the home.

Women, especially working mothers, tend to value “family friendly” workplace policies
more than men. Some of the wage gap is explained by industry and occupation, particularly,
the percentage of women who work in the industry and occupation.

Research also suggests that differences not incorporated into the model due to data limitations
may account for part of the remaining gap. Specifically, CONSAD’s model and much of the
literature, including the Bureau of Labor Statistics Highlights of Women’s Earnings, focus on
wages rather than total compensation. Research indicates that women may value non-wage
benefits more than men do, and as a result prefer to take a greater portion of their compensation
in the form of health insurance and other fringe benefits.

CONSAD 2015: http://www.consad.com/content/reports/G ... Report.pdf

Oops.

[EquALLity]

I love how teenagers are telling me I am doing logical fallacies by.... not really explaining any logical fallacies. "Love the ad-hominems" telling someone to grow up or that they are too young to understand properly is not an ad hominem.

Telling a person to 'grow up' in and of itself wouldn't be an ad hominem, because that wouldn't necessarily be using it as an argument.
But when you use it to replace an argument, and dismiss all of the other person's talking points, of course that's an ad hominem.

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attack on an argument made by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the argument directly. When used inappropriately, it is a logical fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

You dismissed my argument because I used a certain term that you didn't like (irrelevant fact), and because of what you perceive my age and avatar to be (suppositions).
You don't have to literally state, "You're wrong because you used that word/are this age/have this avatar" to be making an ad hominem.
It's really dishonest to try to weasel your way out here based on a tiny detail like that (and one that isn't even relevant).

And it's really funny that you're making an ad hominem as you go out of your way to prove that you haven't been.

I love how teenagers are telling me

Oh, how teenagers are telling you?! How dare they try to tell you anything; they're just ignorant, and shouldn't ever try to correct you, because you're a mighty adult. They're just teenagers, after all. Teenagers!!1!!11!

"Just because she is younger than you does not mean" I am sorry, but if Michael Greger or Richard Dawkins was 14, would you listen to them? No? Didn't think so.

...Yes, because you judge an argument based on the actual argument, and not random irrelevant facts about the source.

Because it is universal that people with almost no experience in a field is not a credible messenger of information in that field, which is why a PhD is more credible than a Bachelors.

...You can have a lot of knowledge about a certain general subject, but still be wrong about a topic within it, while a person with less knowledge about that general subject is right.

I LOVE it when people try to retort against me and say absolutely nothing in several paragraphs that shows me to be wrong. Then again, I am just a bigot against myself, what do i know?

Wow, I know, it's so dumb when people do that.

Making those accusations lacking any form of supporting reasoning, and using them to not address another person's points, however, is totally reasonable.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

I apologize for bombarding you with questions brimstoneSalad, but in addition to the other questions I asked, I have another question. How is science a system of philosophy? I've heard you say it multiple times and have also checked a few sources' definitions of philosophy and science to find that science sits comfortably under philosophy. However, I told this to someone and they seemed unconvinced, noting that it made science seem pretentious and then proceeded to imply that while it may fit under the category of philosophy it really isn't philosophy or is only philosophy technically.

[brimstoneSalad]

However, I told this to someone and they seemed unconvinced, noting that it made science seem pretentious and then proceeded to imply that while it may fit under the category of philosophy it really isn't philosophy or is only philosophy technically.

Philosophy encompasses all knowledge, basically; at least in so far as it's based on logic and reason.

Science is a philosophy because the fundamental principles of the scientific method are philosophy; the notion that we could find objective information, and control for human biases that taint the results.

Simple non-meticulous observation is neither philosophy nor science. Many people misunderstand what science means; science is all about controls, and why that is, and how we can trust it as a source of knowledge is from the philosophy of science.

[garrethdsouza]

Not many people even know what science is. Here's Feynman on the scientific method.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZswnT5uKn_E