Sign into an existing account

No sorry pal. Every one of your responses uses over-generalizations, strawmanning, and cartoonish cliches of women to “prove” your case, while refusing to address every single one of my points.


Both of these numbers (which arent even the same number!) are false if we are looking at white male homocide, but more than that, they are a strawman. Male violence is not rare and not an exception. It is a trend that we see in males relative to females and it is a strong trend. It is greater in white males than in white females. It is stronger in black males than in black females. It is stronger in male gorillas and it is stronger in the males of most higher order species. That is because maleness is older than humanity and the strategy of males is decidedly more violent than that of females. It you take male androgens as a drug, your aggression may increase, and it says it on the label for those drugs. Its as if maleness is instrinsically linked with higher levels of violence. Because it is. Androgens are a switch for genes that cause aggression. This is an inescapable fact.

Now, with the arguments you are using, I can infer that this makes males diseased, mentally ill. With the arguments you are using, I could assert that all males are violent. Neither of these are true.

Your argumentation is dishonest. You have used several kinds of fallacies to support an absurd assertion—that all women are literally mentally ill— and when I point them out, you just double down on them and avoid addressing any of my objections. Your rhetoric has nothing to do with valid arguments and everything to do with pilpul. Theres nothing wrong with my logic. Aristotle would horse whip you for your casuistry. I suppose this conversation must be the exception that proves the rule eh?