I'd be really interested in a show with several expert panellists discussing the intellectual inferiority of women.
I'm sure you would. And conveniently enough, such "expert panelists" can likely be found falling off a stool at the local bar.
Bryan McGilly wrote:What about Rich Zubaty? Or Esther Vilar? I think they would make for some interesting discussions.
Bryan McGilly wrote:I will try to engage another group, but I'm not sure if picking a random self-proclaimed anything- be they feminist or otherwise, is worth the trouble. One can be an ardent believer or follower of any given set of beliefs and still be unable to communicate effectively.
Kelly Jones wrote:A true misogynist has no hate, no desire to denigrate anyone, nor any love for anyone. That is how they can see levels of consciousness without disgust or excitement. That is what the intellectual inferiority of women is all about: consciousness.
But I suppose anyone who understands this intellectually, while not being able to live up to it 100%, is enough of a misogynist to create a coherent argument.
So it comes down to courage. Which of our list of misogynists has the most courage to speak about what they understand, but are struggling to actually embody?
Jamesh wrote:I'll start doing one if you want - but it may take me a while. I'm a poor typist - a bit dsylexic.
Just nominate one.
I'd be surprised if you could obtain auto-transcribing software at an accceptable price - but then again I have never looked for such software.
Unidian wrote:Kelly, did they relieve you from transcribing? I suggested that they should, because you created a very biased transcription for my show. You subtly altered the dialogue against me and in Kevin's favor. You also had me using all kinds of exclamation points, which I dislike and would never use. It made me come off as overly emphatic, further distorting the actual tone of the discussion. I pointed all of this out to Dan and he agreed and apologized. Transcriptions should not be biased in favor of any party, it's very bad form.
Unidian wrote:IMO, David and Dan could have countered some of this more effectively by focusing more specifically on A=A, and how the logical idea expressed by it holds true regardless of what terms and definitions we plug into it. They touched on it, but they didn't get to the core of it. It wouldn't have refuted all of Victor's objections, but it would have cut to the core of what was an otherwise rather peripheral and academic portion of the discussion, where an impasse seemed to have been reached. I think that at minimum, a greater focus on A=A would have steered that portion of the conversation back to productive ground, and I think Dan and David largely missed the opportunity to do this.