null

Let's try this again.

Yes or no:

Is it possible for you to use the word "mansplain" without being a sexist, depending on the context?

So it seems like what you're trying to say is that it's possible for you to use that word without being a sexist, depending on the context?

Yes or no?

That's what I was referring to, clearly.

So your response to "That's not what I said" is "That's exactly what you're arguing?"

Even though I explained it to you right after that line?

I said your logic concludes that you are bigoted for using it.

Weird.

No it concedes that I'm using a bigoted word in a discussion about said bigoted word.

Correct. And:

When it’s a sexist term you’re going to be assigned to be sexist

So, according to you:

• The word is bigoted/sexist no matter the context
• Using a bigoted/sexist term means you are going to be assigned to be sexist
• You used a bigoted/sexist term

Pretty simple stuff, guy. No one made you say these things. You can't be mad at me because you painted yourself into a corner.

Yeah except that's me and we know I don't mean it given the plethora of context

Contradicts with:

When it’s a sexist term you’re going to be assigned to be sexist

Which is it?

"My argument is perfectly clear: it’s that your logic is flawed."

That’s exactly what you’re arguing.

Yeah no shit, that's why I said it...

No it concedes that I’m using a bigoted word

Correct, which, by your logic, makes you a sexist:

When it’s a sexist term you’re going to be assigned to be sexist just like I’m not stopping to ask the person dropping hard r’s if they think they’re racist

Hatred of marriage?

I'm not saying it isn't bigoted.

That's not what I said. Read more carefully.

I said your logic concludes that you are bigoted for using it.

How can we discuss this subject without me necessarily use it.

You probably can't, which really puts you in a corner, logically.

Using a word as an example isn't the same as using it in it's intended context.

You previously stated that it is sexist in any context. So that's irrelevant.

You didn't make an argument you made an insult that didn't even particularly make sense but it's intent was clear.

My argument is perfectly clear: it's that your logic is flawed.

That's ad hominem

Again, no it's not. An ad hominem is when you use a character attack to discredit an argument. That's not what I'm doing.

No I lost

Lol

That's really up to you.

You can either demonstrate how your logic doesn't result in you calling yourself a bigot, or concede that you are one.

You keep saying it's an ad hominem, but I'm not saying your argument is invalid because you're a bigot.

I'm saying either your logic isn't sound, or if it is, then you must conclude that you are a bigot as a result of it.

You refuse to concede that your logic isn't sound, so therefore...

No you haven't.

So you can't show me how my conclusion isn't sound based on the logic you laid out?

What position have I abandoned? I've simply followed your logic that says anyone who uses the word "manspain" in any context is a bigot.

Show me the inconsistency.

It's an ad-hominem to follow your logic in which you claim that you are now a bigot as a result of this conversation?

Or is it just that your reasoning is beyond goofy?

I'm not comfortable using it

I mean, you've used it soooo many times in this exchange now. You must be a mega-bigot by this point.

How can you even live with yourself?