True. But are they directly and completely analogous? Is it then necessary to say, in the interests of consistency and of not being hypocritical, that if you defend Shermer for saying his four that one must, perforce, defend Watson for saying her four?Skep tickle wrote:Haha. Good observation.papillon wrote:"Guys, don't do that"CommanderTuvok wrote: FreeThoughtBlogs - It's a Guy Thing!!!
"How could you be so angry at four little words in an off the cuff Youtube video? That's all it was and now Rebeccas being threatened, cyberstalked and having her every word pulled apart and examined by evil misogynists. Four little words. What's the big deal?"
"It's a guy thing"
"WAAAHHH !!11! - misogyny 101 ! we knew he hated women all along! now he doesn't even bother to hide it!! Teh patriarchy is protecting him. Pass me that book of his and I'll prove it by cherry picking the witch hunt part..see told you..the sexism is just dripping off him! Just like Hitchens and Dawkins. Privileged rich white man that he is.
BURN HIM! CAST HIM OUT! BURN HIM WITH FIRE!
...just four words eh?
I would say not as Shermer’s words seem more descriptive – simply describing a set of circumstances without implying any moral judgements, no inexorable “is-ought†connection; whereas Watson’s are quite egregiously and arrogantly prescriptive, asserting that her experiences and feelings should dictate behaviours of other people - entirely men because she would, of course, never ever take advantage of people in various stages of inebriation ….