bostonbananarama @ bostonbananarama @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

385

Joined

2 yr. ago

Caps student borrowing. According to the bill's fact sheet, the bill would cap student-loan borrowing at $50,000 for undergraduate students, $100,000 for graduate students, and $150,000 for students in graduate professional programs.

What four-year school can someone attend for $50,000? That was the yearly cost of attendance when I went to college twenty years ago. Granted, I attended an expensive private university, but I assume most schools have caught up in the past two decades.

Will this bill essentially price out low income kids?

Not 'negative articles', he said 'most articles

Yes, the articles were negative in their views.

Again not an, most. That is dishonest and disingenuous. Either 'you're' looking specifically for feminist articles negative towards men, or 'you're' being dishonest.

At this point you're (2nd person, singular) either stupid or spectacularly dishonest. You keep referencing most, so apparently he needed to cite, with links, 50.1% of all articles by feminists or you'd bring your same criticism. Guess what, "most" could be true and he could only cite a single article. They are not mutually exclusive. (I've never accepted or rejected the most claim). Maybe the majority actually are negative, maybe he's only read three articles by feminists and at least two were negative, maybe he only reads negative articles, and yet you still attack most. Rather dishonest.

Caitlin Moran even wrote a damn novel on issues and challenges facing straight, white, able-bodied men that need to be solved.

Umm...and? One person wrote a novel? A novel isn't an article and one isn't most! Obviously OP is right because you didn't even give links to most articles. See how easy it is to be a dishonest interlocutor and not meet people where they're at?

If feminist PR sucks, you're reading right-wing articles/twitter posts/apparently reddit posts according to another post of theirs.

That actually doesn't follow at all. Feminist PR could suck and none of those things be true. Mainstream media, like "most" media, likes to present items that will drive clicks and viewership. People with preposterous views have an easier time getting traction because their comments will drive interaction. So the majority of feminists could be levelheaded and pragmatic, but the minority with outlandish takes on issues will likely get more press attention.

OP had mentioned feminists being bad at PR and then mentioned negative articles.

They supported that with the Twitter content being bad PR and an article they remembered seeing. OP also responded to you saying that they didn't maintain a log of all feminism articles they had read. Apparently you expected them to source links to all the articles they've read in the past.

No one's going to do that, if they do supply links it would only be one or two, at which point you'd have made your "that's most" comment, which was the whole point. You're a dishonest interlocutor.

What examples?

The ones you were given.

The guy said look on twitter on National Men's Day,

No, they didn't. They told you to look at a specific account on a specific day.

and a reference to an article (without linking to it) for a hand sweeping 'Most articles written by feministsI’ve read love to stereotype and bash men.'

Yes, which you could have easily googled if you wanted to read it.

Regardless you asked for examples, and then upon receiving them stated "that's most?". No amount of examples was going to be sufficient, your response would have been the same regardless. Your original question was dishonest in that you weren't interested in the answer.

Edit: As for your definition, I don't think anyone opposed that definition. Feminism is a large banner under which a lot of groups identify. So your extremely generic definition doesn't encapsulate all persons or groups.

How dishonest can you be? You specifically asked for a link to ANY of these. You got a response that gave you some examples, and you respond:

So an article, and some twitter comments. That's not exactly "...most articles written by feministsI

You didn't ask for most of the articles and it isn't reasonable to expect someone to provide you 50-100 links.

If you have a genuine disagreement with what they provided you should present that, but as it stands you're being terribly dishonest and disingenuous.

Some House progressives voted against the package, saying it wouldn’t do enough to slash child poverty.

Never let perfect be the enemy of good. In a Republican-majority House did they honestly expect anything better was possible?

No, not a simple blanket ban. But as the article mentions they can make it more difficult to access. The article referenced tying Title X funds to not counseling, referring, or performing abortions. Trump did this in his first term, leading to nearly 200,000 unwanted pregnancies, according to the article.

The FDA could disapprove abortion drugs, meaning all abortions would have to be surgical. So on and so on, every federal agency limits access to abortion.

Who exactly is running the country while you have successive elections that don't net a winner? After each election failure do we have another primary? Do you have any idea how expensive it is for municipalities to hold elections?

To be clear, the highest midterm voter turnout was 49% in 2018. So if literally everyone who voted had voted for the same candidate, the candidate who received 100% of the vote would lose; under your system, no one would ever win.

Even in 2020, only 66% of eligible voters turned out. It's unlikely any presidential candidate could win given those turnout numbers.

Not trying to be rude, but this might be the stupidest idea I've ever heard. You'd literally bring government to a screeching halt because no one could get elected.

And if that were the only concern, then it wouldn't matter. It's when a population realizes that they have nothing left to lose, that they might as well follow the fascist dictator into wars to reclaim glory, in the hopes that tomorrow will be better. The next fascist might well attack NATO, then we're all in it.

Of course, poor, beleaguered and impoverished countries always choose liberal democracy.

It might be useful to remember the Treaty of Versailles and the reparations that Germany was forced to repay.

Is she trying to fast track disbarment? Lying to the court is an excellent way to, at a minimum, receive a suspension.

Thoughts?

Not particularly. Depends on the subject matter. For instance, a politician might be critical of current campaign finance laws being too lax, but still take advantage of said laws. In that situation it wouldn't be hypocritical to say I want to change X, but until it changes, I'm following the same rules as everyone else.

Or maybe they are a hypocrite, I don't know. They could be the worst person to raise the argument, but my only point was that it doesn't invalidate the argument.

A hypocritical and dishonest interlocutor can still make a valid and sound argument. An ad hominem, whether Tu Quoque or otherwise, remains fallacious.

Whether you're being called immoral by Person A or B doesn't change the facts. Person A may be a bad person, they may not be the person you want to hear the argument from, but that doesn't change that they're right.

In propositional logic you only address one prong or aspect at a time. So using my example you could say yes, I am immoral for kicking puppies, but then by your logic, so are you. That wouldn't be an ad hominem because you aren't trying to invalidate their argument with your personal attack/logical argument.

Given a valid structure, true premises must necessarily lead to a true conclusion. A fallacy is an invalid structure; therefore, you cannot know whether or not the conclusion is true. If you can't know the truth value of the conclusion, you wouldn't be correct to reject their argument.

Using the go to example: Plato argues P1) All men are mortal, P2) Socrates is a man, C) Socrates is mortal. Valid structure, sound premises, the conclusion must be true.

Using the smoking example: P1) Person A claims smoking is dangerous, P2) Person A smokes, C) Smoking isn't dangerous.

This argument is invalid in structure because Premise 2 is fallacious. Premise 1 doesn't connect to Premise 2 to lead to the conclusion. Given no additional information, you would not be able to ascertain the truth value of the conclusion, it may or may not be true using this deductive argument.

It's considered a formal fallacy.

you're probably right to discount their arguments

You cannot square these two statements. If it's a fallacy then you are not justified in discounting their argument. They may be a hypocrite, but it doesn't mean that their argument isn't both valid and sound. The smoking example by the other reply is a great example.

I disagree for one that it is “in fact” a logical fallacy and also that their actions are immaterial to your actions.

You're free to disagree, but it doesn't change that you're wrong. If the argument is that your puppy kicking is immoral, it is a fact that your accuser's actions are immaterial. (Obviously we are presupposing that we agree what is immoral, and that puppy kicking fits that understanding.)

Assume there is Person A or Person B, the first kicks puppies, the second does not. Your argument holds that your puppy kicking would be immoral if Person B accused you, but somehow not immoral if Person A accuses you. That's obviously not the case; therefore, person A's actions are immaterial.

Tu Quoque is a fallacy because it does not actually address the argument made, it is a form of ad hominem attack. Given a valid argument, true premises will necessarily lead to a true conclusion. Fallacious arguments are not valid in structure; therefore you can't know if your conclusion is true.

Building on this idea, since Reagan Republicans have convinced people that government is the problem. So at this point, Republican voters don't even expect their representatives to ensure a functional government. Notice that every time there is bipartisan agreement on a stopgap funding measure that a cadre of the Republicans is livid, because they don't want the government to function.

They have been screaming for years about the crisis at the border, now that there's a Senate bill to address it, they vehemently oppose it.

Pretty much. Whataboutism could be any other bad thing, Tu Quoque is "you do too", so essentially you do the same bad thing.

This has a name, "Tu Quoque" and it is, in fact, a logical fallacy.

If someone calls you out for kicking puppies, it is not a fair counterpoint to say that they kick puppies too. Their actions are immaterial to your actions. If the question is one of morality, your actions are immoral regardless of whether or not your accuser is similarly immoral.