[ryanwaggoner]

Is there a term for the ridiculous rhetorical tactic of insisting that any attempt to refute one's claims as being illogical is itself only further proof of the claims made? I stopped reading when he said this:

"I will pause now for the traditional arguments from my readers...Got all of that out of your systems? Good.

Because that reaction is exactly what I'm talking about."

Why bother having a discussion with someone who sets up their argument to be that those who disagree with their argument are only proving the point?

[neutronicus]

Yes. Kafkatrap.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122

[sciurus]

I think the author has a good point, although it's tricky to make: You can spend all day making excuses for specific instances of sexism in comics and video games, or you can realize that your ability and need to do that is a sign of a problem.

[Locke1689]

You seem to be spending a lot of time making specific excuses to why you don't need to listen to an opposing argument. Perhaps you should realize that your inability to listen to logical arguments is a sign of a problem.

[jdp23]

Or, perhaps you should realize that the "logical" arguments are not actually logical and have been repeatedly refuted.

[prodigal_erik]

If you're trying to win over rational people, and refutations are out there to be had, they need to be included. Anyone who thinks "everyone says this argument has the same glaring flaws, and that illustrates how awesome the argument is!" is at risk of reaching conspiracy-theory levels of crazy.

[jdp23]

The author explained why the people making the traditional arguments do in fact illustrate how accurate his observation is. It's true though that articles won't reach guys are so defensive or clueless on this subject that they're not responding rationally.