Women N Black Riffles on MS NBC

[Legba]

imported post

edited out

 

[tarzan1888]

imported post

HankT wrote:

tarzan1888 wrote:

HankT wrote:

Why, Reverend73, I do think your chauvinism slip is showing....

Afraid of strong, successful,and confidentwomen, Rev????

So you're a "strong, successful, and confident woman" are you HankT.

...
In the 1960's and 1970's, women who wereblindly patriotic to the female cause, and thus female chauvinists, would call any man who did not agree with them a "male chauvinist"

The only people I know who automatically think "male chauvinist" when they hear, see, or use the term chauvinist, are , in fact "female chauvinist's" and are themselves very female.

So again I ask you HankT, are you a"strong, successful, and confident woman".:shock:

Thisabove is abit difficult to categorize as written. But I'll slot it into the Hasty Generalisation category:

Hasty Generalisation **

Explanation
A hasty generalisation draws a general rule from a single, perhaps atypical, case. It is the reverse of a sweeping generalisation.

Example
(1) My Christian / atheist neighbour is a real grouch.

Therefore:

(2) Christians / atheists are grouches.

This argument takes an individual case of a Christian or atheist, and draws a general rule from it, assuming that all Christians or atheists are like the neighbour.

The conclusion that it reaches hasn’t been demonstrated, because it may well be that the neighbour is not a typical Christian or atheist, and that the conclusion drawn is false.


Next example:


(1) My own experience is that people who automatically assert "male chauvinism" are women.

Therefore:

(2) HankT (who has asserted "male chavinism") is a woman.





Hmm, butyou've got me thinking, tarzan. Maybe in asserting that Reverend73 is revealing male chavinism in his above comment I should have utilised the longwatch and Hawkflyer school of logic (LHL):


longwatch wrote:

Word around the water cooler is that you are from that area ["NJ andNY"], I believe it since you do not assert otherwise.

Using LHL, I would have to believe that Reverend73 must be reflecting male chavinism in his prior comment, since he does "not assert otherwise."

Hey, if it works for longwatch, it'll work for me...:uhoh:



** http://www.logicalfallacies.info/hastygeneralisation.html

BTW, tarzan, I edited my prior post by changing "chauvinism" to "male chauvinism," which is what originallymeant, of course.

:lol::lol::lol::lol: OK HankT



I just sort of thought it was funny :lol::lol::lol::lol:


To tell you the truth I know men who alsojump to the same conclusion, but if I had acknowledged that, then it wouldn't have been as funny.

The Feminists so over used the phrase, that to many the need for the modifier such as "male" or for that matter "female" was lost, and they thought the term"chauvinism"meant some one who hated women or wanted to put then down, when it meant, as used by the feminist, some one who was blindly patriotic to the "male" cause, at the expense of all others.

Oh well I will get off my soap box and move on. It was funny though. :lol:

 

[TEX1N]

imported post

Ok, this thread is WAAAAYYY off-topic!

I liked the video. I think that the interviewee did an excellent job of showing that a lot of people own a wide variety of firearms for perfectly legal reasons. There needs to be more of this in the media today.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

I just watched the video, finally.

Giving me ideas on what I will do on JJ BAG day...