Well, LtR because I never said anything about insulting someone.

Fine, their code, whatever.

You can say bad things about something withour resorting to insults.

They're interested in pressuring you to tell them everything you can.

No, they really seem to believe in the polygraphs. I know someone who was turned down for a job because the polygraph people thought she was lying about having never taken drugs. Knowing her it seemed remarkably unlikely that she had actually taken them.

Basically they're filtering out all applicants who are bad at taking polygraph tests.

That is one of the silliest hiring strategies ever devised.

you use a different definition of insulting than I do

I doubt it. That was the gist of it and what the underlying meaning was, but certainly not what I said. My point is you can say that sort of thing without insulting someone.

For example (chosen because lack of testing annoys me):

Criticism without insults: There is no testing of sub algorithms, so as it stands there is no way to tell if the bad results you're getting are due to a bad assumptions being made or a bug in the algorithm.

Insults: your code is shit and you're a moron for writing no fucking tests.

You are of the opinion that nothing bad happens to men and it always happens to women.

Nope. I'm just doubting the OP.

Supported by what you intellectual goatse, the paranoid online ravings of professional victims getting PTSD from twitter who are in fact the most privileged people to ever walk the earth?

I don't have a twitter account.

Try again?

This is a bit special. I love how you say this:

You do know that's not what the poster was saying at all, right? You do know that strawmaning is an unsound argument, right?

followed by this:

You continually repeat that white men don't deal with these issues.

I challenge you to find one post ever where I denied that white men don't deal with these issues.

White men do. But the point about this article is that women get it much, much more.

, so I guess you got me there.

Seems like I did. Unless you're claiming that people are trying to stop you exhibiting that sort of manliness.

So far you've ducked and weaved the main point about the sort of manliness you're being "prevented" from exhibiting.

Sure, just go ahead and deny my experiences. Next you'll try to tell me that I deserved it because I was wearing a kilt. Victim blaming is always popular, especially when the victim is male.

No, I wasn't blaming you as the victim, I was accusing you of making stuff up with high probability.

I've never denied the evidence.

Just dismissed it as "insignificant". Which is essentially denying it.

His point is that they're not fuckwads because they're "sexist, racist, homopobic, tranphobic", but that they're "sexist, racist, homopobic, tranphobic" because they're fuckwads.

A fine distinction but I'm not sure it matters.

Also, I think it's pretty funny that in the list of "teh patriarchy" adjectives, "cis" has become so standard despite referring to about 0.3% of the population.

"cis" refers to about 99.7% of the population. I put it in there for the sake of pedantry. The thing is a transgender man is likely to get a lot of shit as well.

Read that list of adjectives as "statistically modal white man".

I guess the more victim classes you have, the stronger your case sounds.

Whatever. Put it in terms of disjunction if you whish.

And that's just off the top of my head, I'm sure I could come up with more.

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make.

Which is why the "invective" wasn't the fucking argument

And yet it has a logical fallacy named after it. It's called Ad-Hom.

Might want to get back to learning logic since sophistry's clearly addled your cognitive faculties, whether intentional or not.

You might want to learn to argue without resorting to locical fallacies such as Ad-Hom.

You made it quite clear you were ignoring any point I actually made. I don't have to debunk you when you do it yourself.

Your point was not good. I then focussed on the rather hilariously poor use of ad-hom. For some reason you're squirming around trying to deflect that you resorted to insults over logic.

"Smart users" might prefer their time to be spent more productively with a WYSIWYG word processor than learning some stupid markup language

Surely "smart users" would not value WYSIWYG over markup if the markup was ultimately a more productive environment.

Few users are that smart.

That I lost by being right?

No matter how much invective you hurl, calling someone a "deluded little shitstain" does not make you right.

That's idiocy.

Quite so.

You're right, white men don't ever suffer insults or attacks on them simply for being white males.

Ah yes, the old "sometimes a white man gets shit so sexism and racism doesn't exist" argument. You do know that's an unsound argument, right?

Which means not only are we not allowed to say what other people think but we're not even afforded the right to say what WE think.

You can say what you like, and you clearly do. However, other people are free to decide that they don't like what you say and (a) say things back and (b) refuse to associate with you.

You bang on about rights and responsibilities, but free speech is the same. All it means is it's not literally illegal for you to say something and the government can't arrest you for it. It doesn't mean that if you act like a massive asshat, people aren't free to shun you.

Because the man gets cused out every day

Speak for yourself. I'm a man and I don't get subjected to this.

Women don't want that. They want to be treated as like women AND be given the respect of men.

No, wrong. Many women simply want to be treated as respected equals.

Women will be protected from male society. We will protect you from our viciousness and brutality. And in return... you stay out of our business.

Please take your male society very very far away from me. I want no part of it. And looking round my (almost exclusively male) office, no one I know here would want your wretched hole of what passes for some sort of society for you.

Choose.

I choose not to associate with people like you. You sound like you move in very unpleasant circles. I want no part of that.

That must be embarrassing since that part wasn't the argument.

It's a classic example of Ad-Hom. Trying to pretend it was not an Ad-Hom and was merely tacked on the end with no relevance to the argument you were utterly failing to make is another logical fallacy: lying through your teeth.