Feminism is a Spherical Argument

A circular argument is a style of fallacious logic which assumes the truth of its conclusion beforehand in order to establish the truth of that conclusion. Which is to say, it is self-validating. A circular argument is easy to refute.

A spherical argument is an ecology of interwoven circular arguments that cross-reference and cross-validate each other with no reference to anything outside the conceptual space their activity generates. A spherical argument is vastly more complicated than a circular argument, which makes it vastly more difficult to refute.

A system of cultural logic may be considered a spherical argument, and a spherical argument may be considered a paradigm. So at the heart of a culture, a cultural paradigm is embedded. And to refute a cultural paradigm is as difficult as to refute any other spherical argument, if not more so.

Feminism is a spherical argument which has obtained the status of a cultural paradigm. That is what makes it so formidable.

http://countersnippets.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-purpose-of-this-blog.html

Definition of "Misogyny"

The accompanying screen cap documents the online Merriam-Webster definition of "misogyny", current as of 24 December, 2012. (Click to enlarge.) I would encourage you to archive your own copy of this, as historical evidence. The trend now is toward feminist balloon semantics, which means that the updated definition (watered down to include "prejudice against women") will be the norm in every dictionary on earth before long.   I see where the first known use of this word was in 1656. Well, the first known use of misandry (as the German "misandrie") was in 1803 -- that's a lag of  only 147 years. So, it looks like both words are historically quite recent.

No "Misogyny" Hereabouts

Apart from the occasional stray remark left by a commenter, there is absolutely no "misogyny" anywhere on the Counter-Feminist blog. And whoever says otherwise is either an imbecile or a deliberate liar. 

I challenge anybody to prove otherwise, but if you are smart you won't take me up on that because the task is hopeless and you will fail.

The Aggressor Sets the Terms of Engagement

If an entity commits aggression against you, you are entitled to answer with a proportional or analogous aggression. Accordingly, if Frank Jones throws popcorn at you, you are entitled to answer this proportionally and analogously, by throwing popcorn back at him. If Frank throws rocks at you, you are entitled to answer this proportionally and analogously by throwing rocks back at him, or  proportionally in terms of violence by throwing  punches at him. And if Frank attacks you with lethal force, you are entitled to answer this proportionally or analogously with lethal force of whatever kind.

In a nutshell:  the aggressor sets the terms of engagement.

Feminism, as an innovative social force in the world, has acted the part of an aggressor. Accordingly, feminism has set the terms of engagement with whatever is not feminist. The latter, therefore, is entitled to answer feminist aggression proportionally or analogously. And it should be an ongoing project to catalogue the forms, manners and degrees of feminist aggression against non-feminism. In this way, proportional or analogous response modes may be formulated and put into practice.

A Brief Thought-Projectile

If the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is compromised or abrogated, certain consequences are apt to be brought about.

Foremost among these, is that ownership or use of firearms will be limited to a much smaller group of people, to consist chiefly of the following:

1. Violent criminals.
2. State functionaries.

In time, the distinction between these categories will become paper-thin -- a mere formality on thin paper.

Tweaking Jezebel's Nose, Fidelbogen-Style

Just recently, as you may know, Kate Harding of Jezebel.Com posted a screaming monstrosity of an anti-male screed, titled "Fuck You, Men's Rights Activists". You will find the article here:

http://jezebel.com/5967923/fuck-you-mras

I posted a comment on Kate Harding's article, and I thought is was in rather fine form. As you see (click to enlarge), I have screen-capped it for posterity.  Enjoy!

What is Post-Argumentalism?

Post-argumentalism is your resolute conviction that the time for argument is past. It is, firstly, the feeling you get when you realize that "you can't argue with crazy", or with "stupid", or with "crooked". It is, secondly, the policy you formulate in the wake of that feeling. This does not mean that you cease to employ argument or debate, as a tool, on selected occasions. Rather, it means you have given up the idea that you cannot or must not push ahead with your plans without persuading your enemy of something. Really, if there is something you need to be doing, why not simply go ahead and do it? What are you waiting for -- permission from your enemy based on the outcome of a discussion? This is your enemy, for heaven's sake! How much consideration do you owe them? And just who the hell do they think they are anyway, the official gatekeepers of the turnpike? The point of post-argumentalism is to reach your goal by some other method than intellectual persuasion of your enemy. So if you know you are right, just act like it, and forge ahead with your plans!