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]

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.