args

3rd wave feminism has made notable progress for civil rights

Con's time is precious so quit with the whole "Thanking" thing. You were incredibly rude and harassed me for days about this nonsense; I'm not one for the two-faced so just spare me. You're forgiven this time. Con didn't neglect anything. You didn't prove what you stressed. 3rd wave feminism didn't cause what you said it caused, it supported what you said it caused, therefore there's not even a reason to explore point A further. You didn't support your own claim (again) and now are twisting it into another claim (again) to maintain some form of integrity. Your own source defeats your claims that 3rd Wave had any real hand in Sex Positivism, instead it took on Sex Positivism, that is Sex Positivism effected 3rd Wave after the rejection of 2nd. "To say sex positivity hasn't seen notable progress in the last 20 years is to ignore observable, documented facts to the contrary.". this is again a shifting of the same arguments because it's an attempt to push ownership for Sex Positivism by 3rd Wave when it is clear that they are not the same seeing as Feminism's 2nd wave, as cited by you, rejected Sex Positivism making the movements separate and their integration is definitely Feminism absorbing the pre-existing instead of Feminism driving it. These two pillars are sufficient to undermine the rest. "Con claims Third Wave feminist beliefs predate the existence of Third wave feminism, which is entirely true, however Con is incorrect when they assume those movements did not evolve into Third Wave Feminism. America was a Capitalist nation long before Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels coined the term in the late 1860s. By Con's logic, America wasn't a capitalist nation until the early 1900s.", straight red herring. No one was even talking about Capitalism. Furthermore Pro starts off by attempting to assert that the Third Wave existed before the Third Wave which is not equivalent to saying "Not All 2nd Wave agreed on matter X" which is just intellectually dishonest and a means to inject one's vantage point into any time period or situation. Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent (http://en.wikipedia.org...) as shown through the logic "If X supports concept A and A is a core of group B and then X is a member of group B." Written out "If a person pre-90's identified as a Feminist but supported Sex Positivism then they were actually a 3rd Wave Feminist." It's false. [ 1. Con again argues that because the term "third wave" came after these movements began in theory, that these movements are not part of the third wave. 2. Con provides no sources, aside from a wiki definition of transgenderism, to support these claims. ] Misstating the position (again); 1. Pro stated that third-wave feminism, in their opening, had a direct impact on the GBLTQ, specifically the T, and failed to prove it which was shown through yet another chronological error. 2. The citation was sufficient to prove the chronological error. There is no evidence of Pro's claim. Pro however does support Con's claim by showing that 2nd wave by and large rejected the concept (as with sex positivism) which in turn means that 3rd wave again absorbed rather than directly effected T but instead simply supports it which was not Pro's claim. Achievements: Con notes that the process began in 1972 and is an old battle. Con does not hide this. Con beats his chest in rage and sticks his tongue out because Pro decided to attempt a chronological war yet again which is not sufficient to prove any form of furthering or ownership by 3rd wave. There is no evidence or reason to believe that a group specifically dedicated to the cause of 3rd wave influenced this legislation which is what Pro needs to prove; general support is again insufficient. Con admits the example of the GED fits the BOP because Con did not have the energy to bother with looking up the history of the decision considering that Pro did not cite any of the "Achievements" and forced Con to look them up himself, by which Con was found to be falsifying statements and using allusions instead of proofs (that the new legislation is a direct result of 3rd wave, which is still unproven ) and con regrets his mercy. Let that be on record. Con REGRETS his mercy. Ha! Also, Pro's sources are terrible and Con uses functional sources when it comes to legal documentation while con uses random lines out of assorted sources to prove nothing again and again and make up claims that they cannot back over and over. And waste cons time. Con is displeased. Is this over yet? This farce? Can we just vote for this guy so I can do better things?