• @crossal
    link
    51 year ago

    Hows the second one stupid?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -2
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Because turning addition into an analogy about gender it’s meaningless and stupid, but we’ve got this weird obsession with turning shit into metaphors and pretending that it proves something.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        71 year ago

        It literally proves that two separate things can be equal. It’s an eloquent and poignant way of saying “you’re wrong.” And they are wrong, because the only argument was they’re not equal because they’re different.

        If they wanted to talk about hormones and muscle mass and other physical things, then yes, your point is valid. But they made a very stupid argument and were proven wrong.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          There is absolutely no situation where reducing a conversation on gender to basic algebra isn’t stupid, but like I said, the initial comment is stupid and deserves a stupid response. It was a good response, but I think we can all admit the conversation itself was stupid and meaningless.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            81 year ago

            There is absolutely no situation where reducing a conversation on gender to basic algebra isn’t stupid

            Except this one. If you’re going to be so fundamentally wrong that you can be refuted by elementary arithmetic, why should anyone bother putting any more thought into it than that? No, you can’t reduce gender relations to a basic math question, but you can reduce thst guy’s take without missing anything important.

          • 520
            link
            fedilink
            21 year ago

            There is absolutely no situation where reducing a conversation on gender to basic algebra isn’t stupid

            If they were doing so in totality (ie: all conversations on gender being compared to basic algebra) then I’d agree with you. However the response is so targeted, in it’s content and in the context of going after a specific respondent who was saying that things that are different cannot be equal, that I don’t think they fall into this trap.