Internet Lunatics - RadFems, PUA's, MRA's, MGTOW's, etc.

Maybe the fourth time's when you'll learn that a claim based on conviction rates can be rebutted with hard evidence that those conviction rates are the product of an prejudicial system and thus giving you biased data.

I'm not holding my breath though.

AKA: "Your citations don't use the specific arbitrary verbiage I want despite directly applying to the topic at hand, therefore I claim they are invalid!"
See also: "Your studies are about Colour perception and not Color perception, therefore they are invalid!"

 

And now we're back to you using fallacies like magic invocations, thinking that just by saying the words and waving your hands you can magically invalidate my facts with your own invalid assertions. For example "false attribution" has absolutely no relevance here, and the "fallacy of composition" is literally the exact opposite of what I've done. You see Baraka when you want to call something a fallacy you need to PROVE IT, just like any other claim. You need to actually demonstrate how and why something is invalid, not just say "you lose because I say so".

Now try it a fifth time and maybe it will sink in that you're making a claim based on a subset of conviction rates and I've proven that conviction rates across the board are profoundly prejudiced and therefore giving you biased data.

 

Evidently you don't understand that homicide convictions are a subset of all convictions, or how synthesis works. Lets try it a sixth time and maybe you'll get it... or maybe as usual you just refuse to recognize as valid anything that contradicts you.

Also your claims of fallacies aren't sticking to anything because all you've done is invoke their names. You haven't demonstrated how or why my arguments are fallacies in any way, shape, or form which makes your post a Bare Assertion fallacy... just like almost every other post you've made where you simply say "I'm right because I say so, you're wrong because I say so".

Now lets try this a sixth time:

 

Saw below. Nothing there. You still fail to prove how and why my arguments are fallacies according to the definition, which is impossible anyway since one of your claimed fallacies simply doesn't apply here and the other is literally the exact opposite of what I'm doing. Once again I've actually said something of substance and you do nothing but simply assert your own correctness blankly.

Had you not been lying yet again you would know precisely why you're objectively wrong in this statement even IF I weren't empirically proving that the criminal justice system across the board is prejudiced and giving you biased data. My data is two-pronged, applying both to claims of violence being a male trait and to the empirical basis of that in conviction rates. your claims are about a subset of convictions. Therefore, my data applies to your chosen subset and THEN some.

So lets repeat this again, for the seventh time.

 

If you hadn't been lying about actually reading my post and citations you'd know why this is wrong even aside from the fact that I was empirically proving that the criminal justice sytem across the board is prejudiced and giving you biased dat.

You made a statement about homicides based on convictions. I cited three seperate peer reviewed articles which proved that the entire criminal justice system is substantially prejudiced and thus giving you biased data. Also once again had you not been lying about actually reading my post and citations you would know you were patently wrong about this, even outside from that.

No matter what I say you'll always claim it's invalid, your current favorite is to claim it's irrelevant or off-topic. The real question is why you are incapable of even recognizing anything that contradicts you as valid. The answer, I still posit, is that we're discussing two different things. I'm discussing facts and evidence, you're proselytizing your religion.

No no no, it's Bare Assertion that you've been relying on virtually every post.

 

The Force is strong with this one.

 

@shadowex3, you appear to want to discuss something other than homicide. Why don't you just address what it is you actually want to discuss, since this back and forth has become hilariously boring.

 

So we're supposed to believe that feminism was the victim of a completely fake setup as part of a massive multi-year conspiracy involving hundreds of people who Buzzfeed claims are all MRA's, despite listing off groups that not only aren't part of the MRM but actively oppose it? And then there's how the foremost feminists online tacitly condoned this by staying silent until the mainstream media forced their hand, and how even then they didn't oppose #endfathersday but instead attacked the people hurt by it.

4chan's trolls started this, but plenty of real people picked it up and ran with it, and trying to pin it on the MRM in yet another act of scapegoating is entirely inexcusable. Poe's law only works if the troll is indistinguishable from a group's normal conduct. This never would've worked had that not been the case, no matter how desperately people try use this as an excuse to claim anything that's drawn criticism was part of the conspiracy. It's a nuclear powered No True Feminist; not only is everyone that's ever politically inconvenient not a True Feminist, they're actually a Deep Cover MRA.


The really sad thing is it would've been so easy to flip this on its head right from the start, especially for people with thirty freaking thousand followers, just by proactively tweeting something like #YesAllDads. And it doesn't take any effort not to do something like scapegoating MRM. Feminism would've come out smelling like roses, the trolls would've starved, and it would've been an enormous step towards peaceful coexistence that undermined extremists on all sides. Instead we get this.

But yknow what? I'm coming to terms with that. When the UCSB smear pieces were spreading like wildfire I was afraid I'd be attacked in a revenge crime motivated by all the vicious libel. Instead I saw were more people than ever saying they read the MRM's material in morbid curiosity and realised they'd been lied to, or that they were finally pushed away because they knew MRAs and the lies about them were just too morally repugnant to excuse anymore.

Two words sum up how all this libel has been working out: "Own Goal"

 

Did you get past your fears by dismissing your concerns by citing statistics about completely unrelated crime rates, or do you only do that to women in fear of gender-based violence?

 

OOOHH! ZING!

 

No I just stopped using feminist math to get to "1 in 4" from "1 in 1,877" and realised my odds were three orders of magnitude better than I thought. But in all seriousness it must be so hard for you to get through life completely incapable of synthesis or even basic comparison. How do you go grocery shopping when you're incapable of figuring out that the round objects next to the Granny Smith apples that look exactly like apples are also apples? How do you find someone's house when their address numbers are covered and you can't figure out that the building between 386 and 390 is 388? How do you buy clothes when only one pair of pants has a size label on it and all the others are just the same size and in the same pile?