By no means? “Either you confess to being a monster or your denial is evidence you’re a monster”. I’m saying that I’m not a monster, but there are people like me that are. Those are very different statements.
Quite the unnuanced words you’re putting in my mouth. Some men are monsters. This is a true statement that you’re degrading for… reasons. I assert that I am not one while recognizing that they exist. Should it be revealed that I am in fact a monster, feel free to shove these words down my throat. I’m perfectly comfortable with women assuming I’m untrustworthy until given reason to do otherwise
Still remains the patently false dichotomy and kafkatrap. It’s a shit rhetorical device that serves no good. This isn’t even careful nuance, it’s pretty obvious.
How is the dichotomy true? It’s predicated on “all men are monsters” and that’s patently false, thus the arguments proceeding it are false.
I acknowledged an additional outcome (more like two outcomes, one cascading from the other): “some men are monsters and I am not one of them”. With no further statement. Should you wish to brand me as a monster, the onus is on you to prove it.
I’m not getting dragged into a pedantic semantics argument. If you think “okay, I agree that all X are horrible, but not me, I’m one of the good ones” works on a mob, be it on your head.
That’s just the first option.
By no means? “Either you confess to being a monster or your denial is evidence you’re a monster”. I’m saying that I’m not a monster, but there are people like me that are. Those are very different statements.
To you, maybe, but not to the horde. You’re still saying “men are monsters”, you’re just personally exempting yourself.
Quite the unnuanced words you’re putting in my mouth. Some men are monsters. This is a true statement that you’re degrading for… reasons. I assert that I am not one while recognizing that they exist. Should it be revealed that I am in fact a monster, feel free to shove these words down my throat. I’m perfectly comfortable with women assuming I’m untrustworthy until given reason to do otherwise
Still remains the patently false dichotomy and kafkatrap. It’s a shit rhetorical device that serves no good. This isn’t even careful nuance, it’s pretty obvious.
Maybe because I’m a monster?
IT’S NOT FALSE, YOU’RE FUCKING DOING IT RIGHT NOW DUDE
Use your words. How is it false. I think some stuff got lost in the formatting.
You can click “show context” if you’ve forgotten what the conversation is about.
I’m aware.
How is the dichotomy true? It’s predicated on “all men are monsters” and that’s patently false, thus the arguments proceeding it are false.
I acknowledged an additional outcome (more like two outcomes, one cascading from the other): “some men are monsters and I am not one of them”. With no further statement. Should you wish to brand me as a monster, the onus is on you to prove it.
I’m not getting dragged into a pedantic semantics argument. If you think “okay, I agree that all X are horrible, but not me, I’m one of the good ones” works on a mob, be it on your head.
I feel like the people getting bent out of shape simply don’t understand how logic works and just want to be upset. Kudos on you for trying though