But what relevance does any of that have to what I'm saying? You can't try to raise rebuttals and criticisms to my position when really what you're arguing against is something someone else has said.
At this point I dont know what you're saying, you just keep claiming Im not responding to your points. Uh huh
If you agree that drunk people can rape then the fact that he was drunk and couldn't consent is irrelevant and doesn't need to be brought up. The question just becomes whether Amy initiated any actions or consented to his advances, which you currently have not demonstrated.
Who iniciated does not matter. She is responsible for saying no, but she clearly did not. Looking for a way to turn her into a victim... I feel like a broken record.
And neither has to be a victim. Being intoxicated doesn't mean you were automatically raped, it means that someone having sex with an intoxicated person is taking a huge risk with another person's life and could be committing rape.
Except many laws and campus policies beg to differ. Affirmative consent dissagrees and says the inebriated individual could not consent, the feminist hypocrisy is turning this into her being the victim. Im just arguing what feminists believe.
Firstly, you haven't shown that there was a victim,
See above
and secondly, you haven't demonstrated that Schumer wasn't the victim.
I don't have to, you have to demonstrate she was, which she wasent. Burden of proof lies on the acuser.
It's not about "finding a loophole" because I don't have an agenda like you do. I'm just dealing with the facts. I don't see how you are concluding that she consented - that's all.
The fact you keep responding so vehemently begs to differ.
I'm begging you to present me with the evidence that I'm wrong so I can change my mind.
See affirmative consent.
rebutting them here, or arguing that I'm refusing to see men as victims when I've said nothing to indicate that.
You derailed the discussion and I am trying to get you back on topic. See linked thread, and do a better job of staying on topic.
It's really just surreal. It's like I'm typing responses to you and you're just coming up with a stock standard response that doesn't attempt to deal with anything I've written.
Because you derailed the topic making it about her being a victim, you're really not good at this.
If I wasn't here and didn't reply, I feel like you'd be writing the exact same things, fighting against arguments I'd never make
Because you derailed the topic.
pushing the agenda you are.
What agenda? That feminism looks at women as inhertly victims? Oh yeah, well you're doing a fine job giving me examples.
I haven't mocked supports for mens' rights.
Sigh really now?
It's a big part of my activist life...
I thought you weren't an agenda pusher? Nah, just a hypocrite.
It's a movement that has Paul Elam as a major figure...
Absolutely, I used to be someone who mocked feminism. Then I thought, fuck it, I should actually read a little about what it's about. Turns out that most of the mocking is based on ignorance and made up facts.
Oh, like the 77 cent on the dollar myth? I used to be a feminist. Then I woke up. Sure there are issues women face seperate from men, but feminism today has gone full retard and you know what they say about going full retard.
Because words carry baggage and depending on the nature of discussions, that baggage can change. Ask yourself: if feminism was such an evil thing then why do most people agree with its tenets when you avoid the f-word in its descriptions?
There's nothing "mystical" about scientific concepts...
Social constructs are not scientific... see trp
Are you serious? "I'm not so insecure as to need labels"... Isn't that the kind of shit that gets posted to /r/iamsosmart that teenagers say?
Because words carry baggage and depending on the nature of discussions, that baggage can change
TRP as pseudoscientific misogyny, right?
I reject the notion the information which can be garnered from that sub is inherently negative just because it is within that sub, and accept there is much pseudoscientific nonsense there. The same as I accept the notion of the patriarchy being pseudoscientific misandry, but I'm a cis white male from a well off family so what would I know?
I wish I had the time and or energy, and you had the openmindedness needed to show you how 4th wave feminism is toxic, but I dont, and you dont. All I ask is you not fall into the notion women are inherently victims, men are inherently bad, and that there is a rape culture needing to be culled in your activism.