Actual Post Script:

An attempt to sexually harass me was made on my Idaho event announcement post (one abusive comment, deleted as not meeting my comments policy even remotely).

Women are not children. If you want to infantilize them, as incompetents who can’t make decisions for themselves or consent to how they choose to live their lives, then guess what, you are sounding like a misogynist.

You are also sounding like a misogynist because you still show no sign of imagining a man actually caring about women and thus actually being a genuine feminist and dating women and having a lot of girlfriends who like or love him as a person. That you can only imagine men pretending to that, means you don’t care about women yourself (since if you did, you’d be able to imagine it, and thus would know I could care as much about women as you do, and thus you could not claim to know I’m pretending to). That’s entry level misogyny.

If a publisher does not agree to publish your useless tracts, they are not censoring you. They are censuring you.

Free speech means I don’t have to publish things that contain no evidence, no argument, only abuse and lies.

Actual arguments, with evidence, without vacuous abuse, get published here.

If you want to read shit that isn’t an actual argument, is based on no presented evidence, or is just an attempt at vacuous ad hominem abuse, go somewhere else for your entertainment.

This blog, has standards.

(Hence, see previous comment.)

I don’t think you understand how refutations work. You made a claim. I refuted it. You haven’t even tried re-defending the claim I refuted.

Moving the goal posts is a fallacy. Learn how logic works.

There is no logical connection between your premise and your conclusion.

Free speech means I can publish whatever the fuck I want on my blog.

Trolls, have no such right, neither legally, nor morally.

This is my house. On my property, you have to follow my rules. Everything else is a waste of my and everyone else’s time. (See previous comment.)

As to your Nazi comment, that’s not even intelligible. Nor is your weird shitting comment intelligible as an analogy to anything here.

“the primary source has been deleted” — WTF? The primary source is a video. It has not been deleted. I link to it in the text I linked you to read.

“if you want to be the “patron saint” of the morality police, that you’d better do a better job of being moral in the first place” — False. One does not have to be morally perfect to have and discuss and hold people to basic moral standards (nor does having and discussing and holding people to basic moral standards entail claiming to be a saint or the police). So far, I have held everyone to the same standard I hold myself to. Nothing more is required.

“I actually have made arguments to suggest that what you’ve done is wrong.” — No, you haven’t.

“Namely that when one is in a monogamous relationship failing to uphold that monogamy is a strong moral failing, then sprinkle in the apparent hypocrisies and the willingness to redefine commonly used words to make you look like less of a moral failure.” — That’s not even a sentence. Much less an argument. Even as a sentence fragment it’s unintelligible. It presents no conclusion, does not state a single coherent premise, backs none of its quasi-premises with any evidence, and exhibits no logical structure.

The rest of your comment is gibberish.

I no longer care what that lunatic says.

Perhaps my details on “Elevator Gate” are wrong but seeing as the primary source has been deleted one must go though secondary sources. Although id argue that even with your version of events, you still have to work in some way that asking one strange women to have sex (or coffee or what ever) is wrong while asking potentially the entire internet of women for a date in which sex is implied by you (now don’t twist that to say that i’m imply dates=deserved sex), without knowing how many of them may be made uncomfortable/triggered/ what ever you want to call it is moral right.

My point is simply if you want to be the “patron saint” of the morality police, that you’d better do a better job of being moral in the first place. (nice use of the word bro by the way, really put me at easy to see my native tongue used).

What you’ve done here is provide a perfectly logical argument refuting a position i never claimed to hold. I may as well come back with A=2*B there for B=1/2 A and then claiming that i have the logical high ground as literally non of that can be challenged. But I’ll repeat i never claimed or even insinuated that male feminists only hold those views because they want to have sex. Nor have i stated anything that would preclude me from being a feminist of a different branch form that that i’m aware of. I do hold that despite your claims of high moral fiber you just do as you please and moralize it after by twisting definitions and belief in some kind of “Carrier Exceptional-ism”. So if you are truly desperate to drag feminism into it here’s how ill work that in for you, “Richard Carrier uses his particular branch of Feminism to retro actively justify his actions and beliefs that would appear, to the outside at least to run contrary to the rest of his beliefs”

You’ve essentially drawn up Lewis’s trilemma, but much like that your argument excludes from the choices at least one major choice that renders the whole thing moot.

I actually have made arguments to suggest that what you’ve done is wrong. Namely that when one is in a monogamous relationship failing to uphold that monogamy is a strong moral failing, then sprinkle in the apparent hypocrisies and the willingness to redefine commonly used words to make you look like less of a moral failure.

You’re arguments rest of little more then twisting what i say into a nice little straw man and then redefining terms into a bat to beat it with.