Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Premise 1: Women's self-reported happiness has declined relative to men since the onset of third wave feminism.
Objection 1: Happiness is not empirically measurable or measured in any relevant science. -- Refuted by literature survey.
Objection 2: Correlation-causation fallacy. -- Study design addresses the risks of a spurious correlation.
Premise 2: Amish communities show that it is possible for women to be treated with compassion and respect without most of the socio-economic changes associated with feminism.
Objection 1: Faulty generalization. -- Not a universal generalization, but a modal operation.
Objection 2: Non sequitur. -- Misunderstands concept of an inductive argument.
We haven't even begun with premise 3, and your track record so far as already a little disappointing.
What exactly does that statement say? Does it say:
"(Feminism) is unworkable because it contradicts scientifically verifiable biological differences, is ideologically self-conflicted and, in the long term, fundamentally incompatible with a self-sustaining civilization"?
No. What it actually says is:
"(Feminism) is unworkable, contradicts scientifically verifiable biological differences, is ideologically self-conflicted and, in the long term, fundamentally incompatible with a self-sustaining civilization".
Every phrase is a separate proposition. Interesting how you both make the same simple mistake together at once.
Then perhaps you should explain each proposition in detail separately instead of just pointing to Amish communities?
How is feminism unworkable?
How does feminism contradict scientifically verifiable biological differences? What are these scientifically verifiable biological differences?
All ideolologies are self-conflicted, so that's a given.
And how is feminism, in the long term, fundamentally incompatible with a self-sustaining civilization?
Premise 1:Women's self-reported happiness has declined relative to men since the onset of third wave feminism.
Objection 1: Happiness is not empirically measurable or measured in any relevant science. -- Refuted by literature survey.
Objection 2: Correlation-causation fallacy. -- Study design addresses the risks of a spurious correlation.
Premise 2: Amish communities show that it is possible for women to be treated with compassion and respect without most of the socio-economic changes associated with feminism.
Objection 1: Faulty generalization. -- Not a universal generalization, but a modal operation.
Objection 2: Non sequitur. -- Misunderstands the concept of an inductive argument.
That's because they're trying to work the system they want to marry up but now a lot of the lawyers and other good paying jobs are done by women, which is fine of course, but it has created a conundrum for them. There's less men for them to marry up with. That's why all of the women in the Bos-Wash corridor are whining about a lack of men, when their really isn't.
They're trying to engage in 1950's style relationships, then they wanted to change the world and now it's never going back. In the 50's all of the men that had good paying jobs most of their wives were stay at home mom's. If women want reversed roles and a reversed job market, which it already is , then they have to be open to being the breadwinner.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,619,501 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderlust76
That's because they're trying to work the system they want to marry up but now a lot of the lawyers and other good paying jobs are done by women, which is fine of course, but it has created a conundrum for them. There's less men for them to marry up with. That's why all of the women in the Bos-Wash corridor are whining about a lack of men, when their really isn't.
I remember Baba Booey said on the Stern show one day how he always hears women complain about how there aren't any guys available in New York, but the only two guys these women are looking for are Brad Pitt and Jude Law
What exactly does that statement say? Does it say:
"(Feminism) is unworkable because it contradicts scientifically verifiable biological differences, is ideologically self-conflicted and, in the long term, fundamentally incompatible with a self-sustaining civilization"?
No. What it actually says is:
"(Feminism) is unworkable, contradicts scientifically verifiable biological differences, is ideologically self-conflicted and, in the long term, fundamentally incompatible with a self-sustaining civilization".
Every phrase is a separate proposition. Interesting how you both make the same simple mistake together at once.
Interesting how you cant answer the question put before you. Predictable yet interesting. Typical gaslighting tactic.
I'm still waiting for our little friend to explain in his own words how life will be better for him when we go back to "the 19th century".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
