33 Red Flags of a Crazy Woman

red-flagIn between last week’s post on the foundation of social justice philosophy, and the upcoming post on Thursday post on SJWs and Post-modernism, I figured something lighthearted and fun would be suitable for Monday’s post. For that purpose, someone linked me a post on Huffington Post entitled “33 Ways Your Boyfriend is Micro-Cheating“, which I renamed “34 Ways You Have Borderline Personality Disorder” initially, which I then changed to “34 Reasons Not to Date Fun Single Girl”. The woman who wrote this article exemplify quite a few manosphere principles, especially the tendency of women to “isolate” their man to some degree.

However, she also demonstrates some rather ill-fated personality characteristics that men should look out for when dating, among others possessiveness, a penchant for drama, and paranoid personality traits that I covered in my series on female madness.

Continue reading

Rational to SJW translations Part 1

Orange-Translate-ButtonAs I was researching the Social Justice Chronicles I started to realize that there are some major barriers to communication between a normal, reasonably reasonable, fact oriented human being and a social justice warrior. To try and alleviate the communication barriers and ensure that a dialogue can be accomplished, with a minimal risk of the SJW needing either a safe-space, trigger warnings or alternatively if they are the acting out variant of SJW and have a high risk of storming stages, attacking speakers, chanting so that speakers can not be heard. This post is divided into 2 main sections, what an SJW is saying and what that actually means and what a normal person is saying and an SJW actually hears. Continue reading

Female to male translations :Part 1

1. “I used to be wild but I’m not anymore”

What it used to mean: “I go out once in a while and dance with my friends and I will occasionally have a beer”

What it means now: Back in the day, I had a wild time, I banged all kinds of men in all kinds of dirty ways, but you get missionary, because I’m a good girl now.

2. “I’m curvy”

What it used to mean: I have a body like Sofia Vergara or Sofia Loren.

What it means now: I have a body like Sofia Vergara or Sofia Loren if they gained 200 – 300 lbs. A synonym would be BBW. Continue reading

Fun with fallacies 15: Kettle logic

Kettle logicKettle logic originally comes from “Interpretation of Dreams” and refers to a person who holds a position, using multiple arguments to defend that position, when his arguments are internally inconsistent.

The original example given by Freud is one where a man is accused to returning a kettle he borrowed from a neighbor in damaged condition and he then uses 3 arguments to defend himself:

  1. He returned the kettle undamaged.
  2. The kettle was already damaged when he borrowed it.
  3. He never borrowed the kettle.

As you can see, each of these arguments by themselves are acceptable. However, argument 3 is inconsistent with arguments 1 and 2. He could not have returned the kettle if he never borrowed it, and in argument 2 he states that he did in fact borrow the kettle.

This is also what Epicurius saw when he came up with what has become known as the “3-O” argument or “The problem of evil”. Wherein god cannot be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. In that if God is all of those three, then why is there evil in the world?

Kettle logic is usually one of the harder fallacies to spot, especially if you are not paying full attention. If combined with a flurry of argumentation, and arguments that are obfuscated so as to avoid being clearly contradictory a speaker can easily give the impression of having a lot of arguments at his disposal, despite the fact that they all contradict each other.

One thing that is often not mentioned is “Kettle citations” this is where someone cites a lot of sources in their argument, yet the sources may contradict each other on important points, while superficially giving the impression of a strong case. This is a phenomenon I’ve experienced quite a lot in debates on religion, where a believer will often cherry pick verses or quotations from a work in order to defeat the argument you are presenting that at moment.

For instance, they may cite the new testament if you are criticizing the somewhat harsh and unforgiving god represented in the old testament, and revert to quoting the old testament when the topic changes to homosexuality.


Fun with fallacies 11: You either agree 100% with what I said or you hate women

false dichotomyThe false dichotomy is one of those fallacies that many people do not notice in a heated discourse. My impetus for writing another fun with fallacies and picking this fallacy was that I ran into a youtube video where the core argument on an abstract level was “Either you accept all aspects of an ideology, or you are an enemy of that ideology”. If you’re read my post on religion vs ideology, here is your sign

At the core of a false dichotomy is a choice between two things, but those two are not your only options. “You are either with us or against us” is a false dichotomy in that you can always be ambivalent. One area in which humans are very prone to this type of fallacy is in our love lives. I’m fairly certain that everyone who reads this has had a friend with “oneitis” who is playing the “If I don’t get with her, I’ll be alone for the rest of my life.”

A way to spot a false dichotomy is by comparing the choice to the choice of “Live or die” there are only 2 options here, if you think there are more then odds are someone is trying to convince you through using a false dichotomy.




Syllogisms on “equality”

Equality is a word that is often used, but can have many meanings, that’s why it’s so easy to use it in rhetoric. We should all strive for people being equal right? Equality just means that people are equal, it’s in the constitution.

In this post, the terms “equal” and “equality” will be synonymous with the mathematical sign =, “meaning of equal value.

Continue reading