This story is unavailable.

Do you really think it’s reasonable behavior to block somebody who you think is making ‘bad arguments’?

Do you really believe that being bombarded by insouciant demands for debate will magically convince someone to give you the kind of attention you want?

If you and others called my house constantly wanting to run down a bunch of arguments I’d heard before, I’d take the phone off the hook after a while, too. If you can’t adjust your arguments in order to come to terms with this reality, then any reasonable person will regard those views as suspect and their advocates as unreasonable fanatics.

Like, “I don’t want to have a real debate about this?”

Who says you’re entitled to a debate?

A debate is something that is possible between reasonable, opposing positions. The original poster’s position is that his arguments are being ignored, and that this is unfair. Is there a reason he shouldn’t receive opprobrium for that? Some characteristic he possesses external to his ideas that should automatically grant him an audience?

Maybe he should offer to pay for one. If his audience still walks out while he’s talking, then he can legitimately complain he didn’t get his money’s worth.

What’s in it for them if you do find yourself being granted a debate? What concessions are you willing to make if you are challenged? What would it take to change your views?

Typical SJW deflection, try to make it about a personal, emotional thing ‘you got rejected’ even though the entire article is ‘radfems reject argument because they are sovietised’.

If advocates of these arguments continue to be indifferent to the cumulative effect they have, then the persistence of their example will serve as ammunition for a group you appear to despise.

Good luck with getting your debate.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.