With that logic, every research article ever is wrong. It's called citing your sources. Wikipedia does that all the time.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
With that logic, every research article ever is wrong. It's called citing your sources. Wikipedia does that all the time.
I can find a quote to support any opposing arguments. Research articles (if they are serious) quote other research backed by science
Quotes are not facts. You can cite scientific souce, or you can say "Whomever says something" and you quote the source proving that whomever said something, not that something is true.
In case you cite a source that has an argument, you are using the argument of your source.
Please tell me how you back this one, for example. I mean, you post it as it is true just because that person said it. That doesn't make it true
Also, Wipiedia at least on the surface provides definitions.
You promote views.
It is different (plus you change the definitions of Wikipedia to suit your view).
Please keep it relevant to the article. You are merging separate arguments now.
I backed that quote when I originally used it in a previous blog post. If you're confused, go back and read it, because I tire of repeating myself to someone who isn't listening.
No, you didn't back it. Stop lying.
All you said was there is no sexism agains men and no racism against white people, which does not back up the quote, and you didn't back that claim either
And you tell me to tell you which of my questions remain unanswered, pretending to be polite, and when I bring them up again you say "Please keep it relevant to the article. " and downvote me for no reason? WTF?
I listen, you have not answered
I'll downvote you back then
@somedude I'll make a separate article covering all of that then.
Feign ignorance all you want.
You copy/pasted the quote without reading the rest of the comment.
I very clearly offered more than just a quote in my original response to you.
These are questions that I have already answered.
You keep on answering with things that don't hold themselves, one after the other, you make up a chain of comments with no bases.
Reverse sexism doesn't exist (I asked you to please show me a dictionary where all definitions exclude men, you cound't because you made that up)
Heterosexist dynamics does not affect women in the same way it affects men (made up, sexist comment)
the majority of spaces are male spaces (made up, look at steem, there are women only posts and NONE men only posts)
Because the deck is stacked against women (false)
And you may need female only spaces, that's fine (I don't) but then don't go on complaining when men need men only spaces then
Your quotes states:
men’s inclusion into women’s political and structural spaces is fundamentally heterosexist;
I asked why is this more heterosexist that female only spaces.
To which you answered that heterosexist dynamics does not affect women in the same way it affects men
That doesn't answer why male spaces are more heterosexist than women's, it just shifts the question to something else, which you also don't provide any evidence to, and which is also a non-equalitarian and sexist statement.
The other thing the quote states is that men’s inclusion into women’s political and structural spaces also serves an old nationalistic claim that women need to take care of men
I asked you why, you din't answer
babbling is not answering questions
Making a separate article does not make your statements true not does it make you any less non-equalitarian