<p><a href="https://backpage.linkman.be/">Having female friends is for females</a></p> <p><a href="https://backpage.linkminer.nl/">Divorced Women Mature; Single Women Rot</a></p> <p><a href="https://backpage.linknavigator.nl/">Top Reason Her Sexual Past Shouldn&rsquo;t Matter</a></p> <p><a href="https://backpage.linkstartup.nl/">Women Care What You Think</a></p> <p><a href="https://backpage.linktoevoegen.nl/">She chose you to be her partner</a></p> <p><a href="https://backpage.linkupdate.nl/">Lil Ms. Windy City Can Blow Me</a></p> <p><a href="https://backpage.maakjestart.nl/">The Hypocrisy of Dating Game</a></p> <p><a href="https://backpage.linknavy.nl/">Do older women shit test?</a></p> Old HUS readers may recall particular patterns in her logical failings, which I think are a significant indicator when discussing someone who’s basically intelligent, educated, well-spoken and somewhat business/reality oriented. One excruciating tic was the “cult of false equivalence” imperative, whereby any logically reasoned and factually supported statement about male disadvantage or female bad behavior could never be allowed to stand, but always, absolutely always, had to be balanced by a corresponding rejoinder about female disadvantage or male bad behavior, even if it were wildly out of proportion or just plain made up. The other tendency that really stands out to me, is that Susan was always something of the “queen of the ad-hom”; one of her favorite usages was to blurt “Consider the source!” as an alternative to any logical engagement. At first glance, perpetual resort to the ad-hom isn’t at all unusual among internet commentators who don’t have an actual logical case but are nonetheless sure they’re right — in Susan’s case, see the phrase “protected conclusion” as above — and so need to change the subject/focus from the statement to the stater. On further thought, though, it seems almost as though she’s taking up ad-hom as a practice for its own sake, deciding that “those people” are icky and so must be misguided and wrong, even if supporting that requires complete speculation, unsupported insults, or outright lies — a new “protected conclusion” that survives unscathed only within the closed echo chamber you see there now. Ultimately, I think that’s the signal point worth noting, though I’m hardly the first to do so: in any kind of battle that should be resolved by logic, the “side” that resolutely slams the hatch on its echo chamber, banning and censoring all contrary ideas and arguments — “We don’t want to hear that here!” — is the side that, before examining any facts, can be presumed to have lost the logical high ground. Perhaps an article in a philosophical journal is in order?