Woman at work, possibly contemplating a false accusation
I screen out a lot of truly terrible comments from drive-by commenters. Though I don’t want these people roaming freely in the comments here, some of what they post is really too good not to share with the world.
And by “too good” I mean “holy crap what the hell is wrong with this person?”
One such commenter, calling himself AvoidDeception, recently offered his thoughts on co-ed facilities, and why women, despite their deep hatred of men, actually prefer them to women’s-only alternatives. Enjoy!
He starts off with a little sarcasm:
What’s wrong with women only schools, women only workplaces, women only hospitals and women only retirement homes? LETS HAVE MORE WOMEN ONLY, SAFE, NON-TRIGGERING SPACES, RIGHT?
Wouldn’t that be great for women? No longer would women have to deal with men.
KNOW WHY THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN? YOU’RE GOING TO LOVE THIS!
And here comes a plot twist worthy of M. Night Shyamalan.
Women need co-ed everything to falsely accuse men of rape, sexual assault and harassment. Without this power over men and without their dead husbands, fathers and divorce raped X husbands, women would have no wealth. It is therefore imperative for women to have co-ed schools, workplaces, hospitals and retirement homes. Without these things, women can’t continue the blackmail and intimidation of men via fear, false rape, harassment and sexual assault charges.
Clever girls.
Ask any modern college hobag what I’m talking about. They’ll deny every single word. What more solid, positive proof can you get than that?
I’m not sure I agree with you 100 percent on your police work there, Lou.
Feminism’s ultimate goal is the destruction of the patriarchy, right? What does that mean, dear mother? It means your son will come to hate you deeply (and rightfully so) upon the recognition that you blew smoke up his anal cavity while simultaneously sexing up most of your neighbors – ho. He will divorce you both physically and mentally, dear mother, and cut all women from his life after learning the hard way that women are the most evil creatures ever mistakenly spawned. Where will he get this information. FROM ME!
Someone woke up on the wrong side of bed this life.
Know how I know women will cum crawling back to men on their knees? Think long and hard.
Er, penis? Really? I’m not sure that’s going to be enough of an incentive for any woman considering crawling back to you.
What’s wrong with the world today? Christians, conservatives, feminists, liberals, white knights, captain-save-a-hos, and most certainly every single member of WeHunted(then ate)TheMammouth.
What’s a “mammouth?” Some sort of mixed drink? A Manhattan, with a mammoth tusk instead of a maraschino cherry?
He ends this lovely miniature manifesto with an equally lovely death wish:
Bye, cowards. Hope you have a painful death!
Have a lovely life stewing in your own rage.
If we ask AvoidDeception if he a man, who has an Oedpius complex, is a register sex offender, has never interacted with another human being, and microwaves melons to have sex with them with his mother’s picture attached to the rind, and he denies it, that means it’s true, according to his logic.
I tried looking this up in logic diagram, and this might be a false dilemma, but I’m not sure myself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
“A false dilemma (also called black-and-white thinking, bifurcation, denying a conjunct, the either–or fallacy, false dichotomy, fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, the fallacy of false choice, the fallacy of the false alternative, or the fallacy of the excluded middle) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option.”
So, maybe?
One mark of the conspiracy theorist – a conviction that the absence of evidence of the conspiracy is proof of the conspiracy’s existence.
I found a piece online recently, regarding the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Almost all participants in consensus reality now agree that it was a plagiarizing of Maurice Joly’s anti-Bonapartist work, “A Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu”. The author of this piece contended that Joly found a copy of the ‘real’ Protocols and plagiarized _it_. It was brilliant, in much the same way as a broken mirror is.
@Banana Jackie Cake – I’m not sure. I think that’d apply to “you’re either with us or against us” statements (when a third option exists), but this might be more of a disguised ad hominem, since it’s saying the other person’s always wrong.
More precisely, it’s saying women always say the opposite of what’s true. So… ad feminem maybe? 🙂
Ad feminem oppositatus! (Hey, it SOUNDS Latin.)
I found possible two logical fallacy that might categorize this guy’s logic.
Affirming the consequent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
Evidence of absence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence
However, they aren’t perfect. In fact, no fallacy of any kind, whether formal, informal, or conditional/questionable perfectly matches whatever the hell this guy said.
His statement is so fucking stupid, in the thousands of years humans have been debating, such a fallacy has never existed. THAT is how outlandish and cartoonish this guy’s thinking process is.
So, let’s call this the “Avoid Deception Fallacy”, where the denial of something makes it true. Could also be called the “Paranoid Deception Fallacy” or the “Tin Hat Fallacy”.
I like Tin Hat the best, actually.
It’s like he thinks the world is one of those logic puzzles where one group always lies and the other always tells the truth. And he has one question to figure out which door leads to the center of the castle and which door leads to certain doom. And the guard is a woman.
(ANSWER: Both doors lead to women refusing to have sex with him. Mwah ha haaa!!!)
Buttercup: I thought of that one too, but in my version it’s which fork in a road you should take.
The underlying assumption is that women ALWAYS lie,. even when it is against their interests.
Thinking about it now, think it’s a bit more specific than that based on his wording. He seems to think that his assertion is so self-evidently true that denying “every word” could only be a bald-faced lie and that the only credible denial would be mealy-mouthed double talk or admission of at least partial guilt.
Which sounds like what he’s actually expecting is that everybody conducts discourse exactly like MRAs do.
What a sad, hateful, ignorant bigot.
Who really should switch to decaf.
But seriously, it’s baffling they think that women get showered with money when they’re raped, or sexually assaulted, or battered, or divorced. It just so completely and totally defies logic and all available evidence. But then, a guy who takes denial of something as concrete proof that that thing is happening really isn’t the sort to be concerned with logic and evidence.
@chaltab Yeah, it sounds like he arrived at his conclusion by affirming the consequent. “All guilty people automatically deny their wrongdoing when confronted. Woman A has denied wrongdoing when confronted. Therefore, Woman A is guilty.” (Not a fallacy because penislogic)
Well, Ignatius J. Reilly managed to cover just about everybody there. “What’s wrong with the world today? All of it except me!”
Also, “WeHunted (then ate)TheMammouth”? Wouldn’t manly paleo cave alphas normally eat something they had hunted?
I think that was supposed to be an insult, but it turned into an own goal.
Perhaps he meant Gregory of MONMOUTH, British Historian.
We hunted the vermouth for you, then drank it all.
We hunted the Man-Moth for you, but he flew away.
We hunted the Weymouth for you, but we didn’t have passports.
Rather worryingly, in cases of suspected Munchhausen’s by proxy, denial is seen as evidence!
And yes, we lawyers have pointed out the absurdity of this.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7960420
Oh goodie, an MRA comment thread, these are always classic. [i]grabs popcorn[/i]
Ask any modern college hobag what I’m talking about. They’ll deny every single word. What more solid, positive proof can you get than that?
Avoid Deception feels sexual arousal at the sight of giraffes. Ask him and he’ll deny every single word. What more solid, positive proof can you get than that?
How ironic; by this logic, whenever a man denies raping someone, that is proof he did it. What more evidence do you need than a denial?!?! There’s never any other motive for denying things!!
This is classic conspiracy theorist thinking (and this is likely only one of many conspiracies he subscribes to). I wonder how he can ever come to the conclusion that anything is false/wrong. Everything is true, even when contradictory. Basic communication must be so hard for AvoidDeception.
Hmmm… I thought I chose a co-ed school environment in order to maximize the perspectives I am exposed to in my academic life. Here I was thinking that I valued male experiences along with my own female experinces. Silly me.
cuz its not as if rape happens in gender segregated socieites – oh wait, it does.