Women are studpid

[asterroc]

When it comes to rational feminist rants (i.e., women's rights, not feminazi), naamah_darling does the best job I've seen yet. Case in point.

Comments

[seekingferret.livejournal.com]

And you're not going to be satisfied until contraception and abortion is completely protected for anyone who wants it. Are you happy now that the line is drawn? Stop cursing them off. They're not bad people just because they disagree with you. Actually, wait. They disagree with you on a moral issue. So I guess they are bad people. If your morality wins out, that is.

We struggle as a country filled with people with different moral values to find some subset of our values that we can all agree upon. Sometimes the best we can do is find a subset of our values that the majority agrees upon. Things would be simpler if we all agreed, but that's not the America we live in. But showing a little courtesy to people you disagree with is really not that hard a thing to ask for.

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

I agree that courtesy is a good thing, but I don't agree with you that it's "not that hard a thing to ask for" - if you were faced with a neo-Nazi wanting to kill you, or a Crusader wanting to convert you at swordpoint, I'm sure you'd have difficulty remaining polite.

And in some arguments, anger and vituperation can be tools to be used to help advance your cause at strategic times.

[seekingferret.livejournal.com]

I've had completely civil arguments with missionaries of every stripe. I seem to attract them with my yarmulke. Jews for Jesus, Islamic missionaries, J Witnesses, etc... People who think that because of decisions I made, I will be going to hell, yet I managed to respect them enough to not curse them off and listen to any arguments they had. The way to combat them is to be more knowledgeable than them, not to yell at them.

But this is crucial: It's certainly true you can sometimes score debating points with anger and vituperation. Are those debating points worth winning? Or have you just intimidated someone into agreeing with you instead of persuaded them?

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

When the debating point involves my life and my body, yes, any means other than physical violence are acceptable. I exclude physical violence b/c including it would be doing the same to others as I am unhappy they are doing to me. Others believe that when it involves one's soul any means *including* physical violence are acceptable, perhaps because mere physical violence does not compare to the loss of a soul.

Anger can win an argument through means other than intimidation - showing opponents you are passionate about a topic can be convincing in and of itself, or others can go along just to shut you up (also not ideal, but again when it comes to my life and body I'll accept that).

[seekingferret.livejournal.com]

Well, fine- but remember that what started this thread was me complaining that what you tagged a 'rational' rant was anger and obscenity-filled, hardly rational. If you're willing to win arguments through non-rational means, okay. Don't go around calling it a triumph of rationality.