JeffBC
Posts: 5799
Joined: 2/12/2012
From: Canada
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire
JeffBC 2 women out of roughly 170,000,000 ~fast reply~ your words are but sophistry choose better words and you may tar and feather him only then....The figure is far higher btw
Really? Sophistry? Perhaps it would help if we broke down OP's argument:
2 women do a bad thing -> there is an unspecified but serious problem in our judicial system -> which is driven by feminism
Notice that there is no justification provided for that first logic step. In fact, that's not logic. The OP simply asks us to extrapolate from one case involving two women to step 2.... major problem in our judicial system. So I turned that around.
Had OP cited a study demonstrating that women disproportionately get off from such crimes that would've been an entirely different thing... and frankly one that wouldn't surprise me. Our society and legal system still suffer from a ridiculous "sugar & spice...." view of females in some instances. But OP didn't do that.
quote:
Reductio ad Absurdum
Description: A mode of argumentation or a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd conclusion. Arguments which use universals such as, “always”, “never”, “everyone”, “nobody”, etc., are prone to being reduced to absurd conclusions. The fallacy is in the argument that could be reduced to absurdity -- so in essence, reductio ad absurdum is a technique to expose the fallacy.
But we could go on with this. Let's suppose that we do, in fact, find that feminism has erred in some ways. That is both entirely certain and worthy of looking at correction when found. But OP doesn't attack the specific error. No, OP attacks feminism in general. Presumably then, OP would prefer the time (at least in our own cultural history) when women had no property rights, voting rights, and in fact were essentially treated as property. That scenario may be fine for OP but it most definitely is not for me. If nothing else, I find it inefficient for a society to waste fully half of its potential productivity and creativity before we even get into the ethical and moral issues. It's an argument for gender based slavery.
Had OP put together an argument which held water... one citing facts which supported the conclusion and then limiting remedial actions such that we weren't throwing the baby out with the bathwater then I'd have had an entirely different reaction. As it was, the argument itself was absurd and my post pointed it out.
Just to clarify my viewpoint, I no longer call myself a feminist for reasons just like this. But all that means is that I no longer choose to rally under a banner which has become muddled and stained. I prefer to treat things issue by issue and make my judgements accordingly. So among people who do not approve of flat out patriarchy I'm a receptive ear to a well constructed argument in this space.
_____________________________
I'm a lover of "what is", not because I'm a spiritual person, but because it hurts when I argue with reality. -- Bryon Katie
"You're humbly arrogant" -- sunshinemiss
officially a member of the K Crowd
|
Milo says: "Lesbians are terrifying!" - 
Profile
It is a post from you, Awareness, so I am guessing that your response will be your status quo hatred of women; if we stand up for ourselves we are “Da ebil feminazi”and every bad thing is our fault........ and if we don't we are too “stoopid” to breathe and deserve every bad thing that happens to us. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread