No, see, you keep missing my points and taking them out of context, and I think you're doing it on purpose.
No, I don't. And if I do, it's not on purpose, it's just because I'm an idiot.
But, let me backtrack and see if I missed something:
Nadine: The reason why you hear zero arguments against your claim is because it's just your own personal opinion
GiL: (paraphrasing) It's not just MY opinion. Lots of other people think like me.
Nadine: *pulls up the ad populum sword*
What did I miss? What did I take out of context? And now...
You said that I believe circumcision is worse than rape, just because I say so. I made the point that other people believe it too.
So? It's still your own personal opinion/belief, regardless of whether other people share it or not. Everything I said before still stands. The fact that you're not the only one claiming that doesn't add any strength to your claim.
The issue here is NOT that they are right just because there is a group of people who believe it.
Then you shouldn't use "a lot of people agree with me" as an argument. You were the one to bring that up, not me.
But isn't it interesting that society hates MAPs, and loves circumcision (yes, America does). By that logic, it would mean that we, and the intactivists, are the correct ones.
No, it wouldn't. The logic you're following is not correct.
If I say "MAPs are child rapists because the majority of people say so", then the whole sentence is incorrect, the logic used to come to that conclusion is incorrect. But just because of that, you can't assume that the conclusion was wrong (ie. that MAPs are not child rapists). They might still be child rapists for other reasons (we're not, this is just for the example's sake)
Now you say something like: "Circumcision is OK, because society is OK with it". And jump straight to saying that, by applying my logic, circumcision is not OK and therefore intactivists are right. That's not "my logic" and that's not correct.
Nope, that's not what I said at all, and I went out of my way 2 or 3 times in that chat to make that clear. As I said there, and you ignored, I don't care who people vote for. I do, however, care about their intentions. IF they vote Killary, and go out of their way to defend her as a good person (like Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins did, etc), and not simply a lesser evil, then that's where I bring a voter into question.
That's fine. I still think that's not a good way of judging people, but it's your way and I have to respect it.
I didn't assume it. I could be wrong, but I believe I've seen you admit to being female in the past,
You're invited to read my introduction post at VoA where I explicitly state that I'm male. I made similar mistakes with user's genders too so don't sweat it. Also, like I said, my name gives the wrong impression :P
as well as to certain details about your past, which I won't mention here (for obvious reasons of privacy respect)
Thanks, I appreciate that, whatever those details might be. But if that's supposed to be a threat then save it.
What I do know is that the way you talk screams "woman" to me
Now that's just rude :P
Why do you seem more intent on bringing my character into question instead of bringing my arguments into question?
That's quite faulty logic. Are you saying we should continue to cut-up the penises of inferior-male pigs just so the ones it already happened to won't feel bad? I don't think you really believe that, but you seem to be saying I should, which is taking things way, way out of context.
It's also putting words into my mouth.
Nooooo, I wasn't trying to put words into your mouth, and I'm definitely not suggesting to cut-up anyone (now you're putting words in my mouth)! I just presented a hypothetical situation to you and wanted to hear what you thought. But nevermind, it was just a silly game. Not even an argument.
It seems you're angry about me pushing this topic, sorry to say, I do believe because of personal issues you have deep down with males.
For the last time, I'm a guuuuuuuy!!!! :D
Nadine: (I'm only mimicking your logic here, I don't think you don't care about all that. I just hope you can see my point here)
The point was not seen. Let's start again.
So tell me then... what are YOU, Nadine, doing to end this suffering of males and help make it illegal?
Now what did you want to imply with this question, GiL? That because I'm not actively participating in activism then my opinion is useless? That because you do participate in activism then you're opinion is more important than mine? Don't tell me that wasn't your intention because there was no other reason to ask this otherwise.
Nadine:Now GiL, tell me... what are you doing about people dying of COVID-19? What are you doing about homeless people? What are you doing about poverty in third-world countries? What are you doing about child labor? What are you doing about climate change? What are you doing about everything that's wrong in the world?
I guess that means you either don't care about those issues or that your feelings about them aren't genuine and therefore your opinion shouldn't be taken into account.
My point was that you don't have to actively participate in activism to care and form an opinion on whatever subject, so the question of whether or not I do activism is completely irrelevant to the debate and clearly meant as an attempt to diminish the importance of what I said.
All those questions were rhetorical by the way, you didn't have to flex with your answers.
On your own words: "Re-read my post".
I'm not going to engage any further in this discussion, we'll never get to a common point anyways like this. If you want to count this as your win, then go ahead, be my guest.
Peace. And I hope our next encounter involves talking more about LGs and music and less about politics or rape :)