Ok, I'll bite this, too tempting not too.
Beamer wrote on Sep 22, 2014, 20:40:
1) You never defined "intellectual dishonest" and said how it relates to me. You're like a dog with a bone with that term, which I assume you picked up on Twitter, but you've never once actually applied it. You just put it out there. Never with a "because..."
Definition of intellectual dishonest: you. Simple.
Beamer wrote on Sep 22, 2014, 20:40:
2) Misolgist, nice, you learned a new word. You still fail to actually cite anything, though, so it's hard to tell why you use it
Been citing tons of stuff, it's you who never acts on it. Also, learning new words is good, it culturally enriches you, you should try it.
Beamer wrote on Sep 22, 2014, 20:40:
3) You do not get to say what a "real" feminist is, but look at the link to the Rational Wiki, one of the premier sources of atheist discussion, and see why Thunderf00t is considered a giant raging asshole. I sourced it for you, and, conveniently, it also has sources rather than simply red Paint lines. I'll also give you a quote:
The videos are heavy on strawmen; they misrepresent feminists' arguments to an extent that is either grossly naive or wilfully disingenuous, and propagate stereotypes of feminists as frigid, joyless "professional victims". To underline this point, the second video contrasts footage of Watson and others talking seriously about their concerns, with a montage of party photos showing Mason and his pals larking around in silly costumes, drinking and hugging. Victory!
You accuse me of "intellectual dishonesty" and "misology" yet you say that Thunderf00t is a feminist.
And you don't get to generalize and define what a real feminist is either. Apparently you have no idea about feminism, typical of a SJW, since there are three waves of feminism, the third-wave being the ones that use the misogynist word so heavily it lost all its meaning at this point. Also, if you had done some research, instead of relying on some site, something you keep on preaching that others do to their detriment, you would find out that wiki is heavily biased to "feminists", hence their attack on Thunderf00t. Of course, research and facts is something you abhor.
So it's ok to generalize when it favors SJWs, gotcha!
Beamer wrote on Sep 22, 2014, 20:40:
Though I did forget you said you wouldn't respond to me anymore, which was convenient, as it let you be Cutter and say something flagrantly incorrect (that you can't be fired for things you do outside of work) and then never respond when corrected.
So, I made a mistake. When I worked at S&P the laws at the US were more lax. Though I love how you generalize, something you seem so much to be against though not when it's about defending SJWs, and seem to think I know nothing based on a single mistake.
And this is truly the last time I reply to you. Misologists deserve no reply and I'm getting tired of being baited by you, my fault I know, but won't happen again. Too tired of your circular logic, strawmen, misology, intellectual dishonesty. You offer nothing new but the same tired argument which has been debunked time and time again. It's getting tiresome showing you facts and destroying your arguments.