A Civilized Discussion on Gender Issues

[LimpyLoo]

You were directly replying to me. Would you please form your argument syllogistically (All A are B, all B are C, therefore all A are C, etc) for me? I think I may be misrepresenting it. Or at least, answer my questions about how you got from one line to the next. (logically, please)

 

Yes I would love to hear this.

[Guest zaphod]

i've been reading all of zeffolia's posts in a soft irish lilt set against cascading tremolo guitars. a couple more pages of this and i'll have an album's worth of material.

[zlemflolia]

You were directly replying to me. Would you please form your argument syllogistically (All A are B, all B are C, therefore all A are C, etc) for me? I think I may be misrepresenting it. Or at least, answer my questions about how you got from one line to the next. (logically, please)

 

 

I simply said that males being a victim of rape is more of a problem than women being the victims of rape, since the majority of rape victims are males

Unless of course you want to say that since it's male-on-male the victim can be blamed because his gender is the same as the perpetrator

In which case it'd be equally alright to say black-on-black theft is justifiable and not a problem which I'm sure you'd disagree with.

 

-The majority of rape victims are males

-The severity of a problem is based on the number of victims of that problem

.:.Rape of males is more of a problem than rape of females

 

Pre-emptive counterargument:

->In the event that you or someone say or think that even though males are the majority of rape victims, female rape is still more of a problem because

-Case A:

---It's male-on-male, so it's still males to blame

-Case B:

---They are in jail so that can be counted as part of their punishment

 

-> I respond with:

Case a:

--This is generalizing all individual members of a group as having the same quality as the average whole, which is fallacious. An analogous argument could be that black-on-black theft isn't a problem for that same reason (the fallacy of equating qualities of an overall whole to individual parts)

Case b:

--The majority of people in prison are non-violent offenders for drug "crimes" and rape is not a justifiable punishment for that. Nor is it for any crimes in general, even rape.

 

Is that linear enough for you

[encey]

 

You were directly replying to me. Would you please form your argument syllogistically (All A are B, all B are C, therefore all A are C, etc) for me? I think I may be misrepresenting it. Or at least, answer my questions about how you got from one line to the next. (logically, please)

 

 

I simply said that males being a victim of rape is more of a problem than women being the victims of rape, since the majority of rape victims are males

Unless of course you want to say that since it's male-on-male the victim can be blamed because his gender is the same as the perpetrator

In which case it'd be equally alright to say black-on-black theft is justifiable and not a problem which I'm sure you'd disagree with.

 

-The majority of rape victims are males

-The severity of a problem is based on the number of victims of that problem

.:.Rape of males is more of a problem than rape of females

 

Pre-emptive counterargument:

->In the event that you or someone say or think that even though males are the majority of rape victims, female rape is still more of a problem because

-Case A:

---It's male-on-male, so it's still males to blame

-Case B:

---They are in jail so that can be counted as part of their punishment

 

-> I respond with:

Case a:

--This is generalizing all individual members of a group as having the same quality as the average whole, which is fallacious. An analogous argument could be that black-on-black theft isn't a problem for that same reason (the fallacy of equating qualities of an overall whole to individual parts)

Case b:

--The majority of people in prison are non-violent offenders for drug "crimes" and rape is not a justifiable punishment for that. Nor is it for any crimes in general, even rape.

 

Is that linear enough for you

 

 

I would rather have said something like:

 

-Case C:

---Prison rape, while wrong, is slightly more to be expected given the population (criminals, gangsters and/or the mentally disturbed*), their histories, and the social climate of a prison, compared to a (presumably otherwise innocent-of-crime-or-criminal-intent) woman being raped in the public, social world outside of jail. The latter is wronger, more unjust/morally wrong, because of the nature of the victim and the circumstances.

 

* with a caveat that I might be greatly mistaken about just who is getting raped, just what kind of prisoner)

[zlemflolia]

Your Case C I suppose does seem a bit justified

 

But then wouldn't the idea of environmental circumstances (being in a jail where the risk is high) and past actions (choosing to put themselves in that environment) then somewhat justify other occurrences of rape where the environment and freedom of the potential victim to put themselves in that environment, does promote rape

 

Such as college frat parties.

 

The same logic can be applied to that yet many suggest that's where the majority of man-on-woman rapes occur, so there's a bit of a contradiction.

[goDel]

i think it matters very much, it's an important contemporary topic and those kind of arguments can expose you to new information, new ways of thinking about the topic, challenge your ideas and theories (even if no one usually admits it) and so on.

Sure. And his argument was that personal, or anecdotal experiences are irrelevant. Mine is they're not. A change in point view is even better achieved by reading about different personal accounts, imo. Apparently not in a pseudo- scientific/ logical discussion. Which makes it weirder, imo.

 

You'd almost understand why someone could use faggot as an insult without the intention to insult other people who just happen to be called faggots as well. Those other people are apparently only " personal accounts" without a "scientific significance". Completely irrelevant for this discussion ( but nevertheless insulting - to the point of negating every point made in this discussion). It's not within the "logic" of "science" to take personal experiences into account?

 

It's a personal fabricated logic to begin with, if you ask me. Some philosophical school would argue that science is initiated from personal experiences. But these fundamental things which you could call biases are somehow irrelevant later on in some higher form of science?

 

Sorry for still derailing this thread. I'm just trying to challenge some ideas. Must be boredom, I guess.

[zlemflolia]

 

i think it matters very much, it's an important contemporary topic and those kind of arguments can expose you to new information, new ways of thinking about the topic, challenge your ideas and theories (even if no one usually admits it) and so on.

Sure. And his argument was that personal, or anecdotal experiences are irrelevant. Mine is they're not. A change in point view is even better achieved by reading about different personal accounts, imo. Apparently not in a pseudo- scientific/ logical discussion. Which makes it weirder, imo.

 

You'd almost understand why someone could use faggot as an insult without the intention to insult other people who just happen to be called faggots as well. Those other people are apparently only " personal accounts" without a "scientific significance". Completely irrelevant for this discussion ( but nevertheless insulting - to the point of negating every point made in this discussion). It's not within the "logic" of "science" to take personal experiences into account?

 

It's a personal fabricated logic to begin with, if you ask me. Some philosophical school would argue that science is initiated from personal experiences. But these fundamental things which you could call biases are somehow irrelevant later on in some higher form of science?

 

Sorry for still derailing this thread. I'm just trying to challenge some ideas. Must be boredom, I guess.

 

It's not a personally fabricated logic lol

 

It's Aristotelian Syllogistic Logic.

 

There is only one logic. It is a perfectly formulated field of study where everything that is currently known about it is all there is and ever will be to know.

 

Take a quick gander

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism

[goDel]

Hey wiseass, i studied this stuff. That logic machine of yours works because of the information you put into it. Even though that machine might be unbiased ( which could be a debate of itself, but is not the one i'm challenging atm), the information which is being considered, isn't. And there's also the side of interpreting all that information, or creating meaning out of it, which is an entirely new subject by itself. I'm sure you understood what Quine was working on?

[zlemflolia]

Okay I see your point but that wouldn't make anecdotal evidence relevant

 

Nor would it make knowing information about a person making an argument relevant

[goDel]

You see my point, but apparently still don't understand.

 

My guess is you're a programmer in real life. If true, you might want to consider using a different interpreter. Because your current one translates your code into a suboptimal executable.

[zlemflolia]

You see my point, but apparently still don't understand.

 

My guess is you're a programmer in real life. If true, you might want to consider using a different interpreter. Because your current one translates your code into a suboptimal executable.

Alright whatever

 

I see your point but it isn't coherent or valid and doesn't back up your argument. Anecdotal evidence is never admissible as an argument. Nor are attacks on the person who is making an argument

 

Period. That shouldn't be hard to understand.

 

And the idea that you have "studied this stuff" just makes me laugh and seems like a way for you to try and save face. You clearly don't understand it.

[vamos scorcho]

Hey wiseass, i studied this stuff.

 

 

fuck quine yo

[goDel]

Well, I'm not arguing personal experience is "admissable as an argument". That's your interpretation. I'm saying it's "relevant". See the wonders of interpretation and meaning.

 

You can bullshit me on saying I studied this stuff, but the irony is your starting point was to completely ignore the personal stuff. Not really consistent, is it?

[vamos scorcho]

no b. actually i am pretty interested in how quine has contributed to ur logic. i read 2 dogmas and honestly i dont think it made me any more logical. but ppl worship that shit for some reason. can't say i get it.

[goDel]

The point on Quine is more about the importance of meaning within the field of logic. How meaning is approached within logic is point of discussion. And the fact there's serious discussion about it within the field of logic implies there's more to it than just applying some set of formal logical rules, which zeff is arguing.

 

If that makes me look stupid, fine. I agree that a 101 on propositional logic doesn't make one a logician, though. What do you think zeff?

[zlemflolia]

The point on Quine is more about the importance of meaning within the field of logic. How meaning is approached within logic is point of discussion. And the fact there's serious discussion about it within the field of logic implies there's more to it than just applying some set of formal logical rules, which zeff is arguing.

 

If that makes me look stupid, fine. I agree that a 101 on propositional logic doesn't make one a logician, though. What do you think zeff?

A 101?

[goDel]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/101_(term)

[zlemflolia]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/101_(term)

Lol ok

 

But to blatantly disregard and break the rules of a topic which only requires an introductory level of learning to understand isn't quite intelligent either.

[vamos scorcho]

in case influence be comin from i... didn't mean to disrput

 

my post was a 2 parter

 

1. post/av combo (baddass)

 

2. fuck quine

 

no relevance to the argument at hand and thus plays no hand in winner/loser

[encey]

There's many types of logic, btw, and philosophical debates about which best captures the structure of reasoning.

 

Among them are modal logic, paraconsistent logic, fuzzy logic, quantificational logic, syllogistic logic, intuitionist logic, 'hybrid logic,' relevance logic, 'free logic,' informal logic -- who knows wtf some of this shit is!

 

Also, syllogistic logic is so passe. It would be like trying to drag race in a VW Beetle.

[SR4]

wheres Bertrand when you need him?

 

[rixxx]

here's an interesting article regarding feminism and how people now view it:

 

http://feministing.com/2013/04/18/what-can-we-do-about-feminisms-brand-problem/

[chenGOD]

of course he has personal reasons and is biased in some ways, but you can judge the product itself, i.e. the arguments he produces on their own merit. think of it as a game, we receive some arguments from an anonymous being that may have some scientific basis and our goal is to refute them by following very particular rules.

 

But don't you think that his socialization has affected his views on what can be considered normative? And wouldn't it be possible that because of his socialization, the evidence he is presenting suffers from confirmation bias? I would have though you would have considered that eugene, aren't you doing work in sociology (or have I misunderstood your studies)?

I reviewed three of the articles he posted, and as a result, one part of his argument became a side issue (paraphrasing). The other two articles did not back up his assertions through statistical data.

 

zeffolia, the one article on sexual aggression which attempted to collect and analyze multiple data sets also exhibits many flaws, for example, the first data set which comprised a study of about 80,000 individuals (or approximately 25% of the total) was for school students. It also indicated that by the time the students had reached young adulthood (16-18) men were the perpetrators of sexual aggression more than twice as often as women. Additionally, I do not believe that aggregating small sample sizes asked different survey questions validates the results of the previous surveys.

 

Yes men have to register for the draft - with women being granted the "opportunity" to join the US armed forces, equality would mean they would have to register as well - maybe you should right to your senator/congressman.

Your argument that women have all the rights when it comes to parental responsibility rests on them being able to abort at will (and stealing sperm from a dumpster, an argument I will avoid). While technically true, I would argue that the emotional distress surrounding abortion (having some personal experience) makes that a non-viable option for the vast majority of cases. Statistics indicate that abortion rates in the US have dropped over the last decade so it seems that women are not abusing that as their "right" to dominate in matters concerning parental responsibility.

[eugene]

 

of course he has personal reasons and is biased in some ways, but you can judge the product itself, i.e. the arguments he produces on their own merit. think of it as a game, we receive some arguments from an anonymous being that may have some scientific basis and our goal is to refute them by following very particular rules.

 

But don't you think that his socialization has affected his views on what can be considered normative? And wouldn't it be possible that because of his socialization, the evidence he is presenting suffers from confirmation bias? I would have though you would have considered that eugene, aren't you doing work in sociology (or have I misunderstood your studies)?

I reviewed three of the articles he posted, and as a result, one part of his argument became a side issue (paraphrasing). The other two articles did not back up his assertions through statistical data.

it most definitely suffers from some bias and he might have an agenda behind his attack on feminism but it shouldn't matter if he brings scientific articles as a basis, we can address those as they are without considering his bias and agenda, as you and i did.

[chenGOD]

Well yes, the argument in and of itself should be analyzed with as little bias as possible. However, in the context of the WATMM community, I was interested to know the reasons behind it.

 

(personally, i hope my (future) wife makes a shit ton of money and I get to stay at home raising the kids - fucking awesome).