fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 56,069
- 138,914
No actually, you go find me where biology is part of the curriculum of the gender program she attended.
Tanoomba's Toxic Tank of Traducement
- Thread starter Lightning Lord Rule
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
- Status
No actually, you go find me where biology is part of the curriculum of the gender program she attended.
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 56,069
- 138,914
I did that a year ago when she did her dumb series, this is a meta arguement that you're too stupid to recognize.
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 56,069
- 138,914
Does the program that anita was accredited with use biology as part of teaching her about gender? go answer that question.
of course you won't find any quotes about anita talking about biology at all, why would I have a quote about a subject she doesn't talk about?
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 56,069
- 138,914
You would think a class dedicated to differences between men and women would have biology in the curriculum, if it doesn't how could it be legit in any way shape or form? How can you claim any scientific basis for what you're doing when you ignore science?
DickTrickle
Definitely NOT Furor Planedefiler
- 13,575
- 15,890
It's funny, because I think we're probably more aligned than I am with Tan since I abhor post modernism and most if it's derivative ideologies, but you're still terrible at arguing a point coherently.
- 1
DickTrickle
Definitely NOT Furor Planedefiler
- 13,575
- 15,890
DickTrickle
Definitely NOT Furor Planedefiler
- 13,575
- 15,890
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 56,069
- 138,914
It's funny cause you add nothing here and act dumb, maybe you should not shit up the thread?
- 1
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Are the only differences between men and women biological? Sarkeesian isn't a biologist and never pretended to be one. That doesn't automatically invalidate everything she says, and it CERTAINLY doesn't mean she's dangerous or harmful.
Also, who are you to say she ignores science? You're using hyperbolic terms to push your ideological agenda here. Instead of coming to the reasonable conclusion that there is more than one way to look at gender issues in society, you've decided (more than a little arbitrarily) that the only valid framework is biology, and that anything that isn't explicitly about biology is "ignoring science" and therefore not only wrong but harmful. That's asinine. One can talk about video game design without ever having written a line of code. One can analyze a movie without ever having set foot behind a video camera.
If Sark was making provably false claims that directly contradict established science, and doing so specifically to push for destructive social change, then you might have had a point. But she isn't talking about biology. She isn't making provably false claims. And she isn't pushing for destructive social change, even if it makes you feel high and mighty to claim otherwise. If she was doing any of those things, you know what would reflect that? HER WORDS.
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 56,069
- 138,914
Of course not but you'd have to know about biology, saying sarkeesian isn't a biologist is a giant LOL copout, her curriculum should make her familiar with biology, if it doesn't that's a huge failure of the female studies curriculum.
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 56,069
- 138,914
every word out of her mouth that isn't science, based, since you seem so confident this exists, you have many examples ready to quote right?
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 56,069
- 138,914
"
How can you have any substantive discussion about men and women and you never talk about hormones or biology, not once at all?
How can you have any substantive discussion about men and women and you never talk about hormones or biology, not once at all?
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 56,069
- 138,914
How can you know anything about the differences of men and women and not atleast taken level 100 courses in the science that literally tells you the physical differences between them. If you're never trained in that science how don't you know if your conclusions are bullshit if you never check your theories against things like hormones?
- 17,781
- 25,897
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
I'm not saying she's making biology-based arguments, I'm saying the arguments she's making aren't necessarily dependent on a knowledge of biology.
Who are you to decide the only framework from which certain topics must be discussed? Do you know when biology would be relevant to something Sark talks about? When she makes a statement that can be proven false with facts about biology. You saying "She MUST mention biology or her entire stance is invalid" is an entirely feels-based assessment that makes no logical sense. It's also a form of thought-policing, incidentally.
Why not? There's no rule saying we can't, except the arbitrary one made up by you to suit your ideological purposes and discredit people you disagree with. Well, I'm assuming you disagree with her. You have yet to mention a single stance she has taken that you have a problem with.
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 56,069
- 138,914
without having even basic familiarization of biology or any science, statistics ect, it's by definition an ignorant argument, and that's being generous.
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 56,069
- 138,914
science is not an ideology lol, there's you trying to turn an argument against itself again, science is a set of tools that dispels ignorance, which is why anita's arguments are ignorant (and stupid).
not "requiring" biological knowledge of hormones while talking exclusively about differences in men and women is just ignorance trying to pass itself of as morality.
- 1
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 56,069
- 138,914
- Status