4 ms·
Well, no. You're assuming the woman is reasonble by default and thus the man must be at fault. This is actually a sexist point of view.
by ownagefool 10y ago
Well, no. You're assuming the woman is reasonble by default and thus the man must be at fault. This is actually a sexist point of view.
- louduh 10y agoYou forgot "actually" after your "Well"
- nurettin 10y agoExcept I wouldn't ignore textual evidence "because women can be unreasonable" or "men can be assholes".
- Chris2048 10y agoStraw-man. Or possibly framing the original argument stereotypically/in bad-faith. Concluding you only have one side of the story, is not the same as, nor necessitates ignoring it. One alternative is getting the other side of the story. I also find the phrasing "because women can be unreasonable" to be suspicious - there is no reason to put it this way rather than "people can be unreasonable"; OP made no claim that only women should be treated with skepticism. - are you trying to invoke the historical meme of women being dismissed as irrational?
- nurettin 10y agoI did not make up the phrase, just read the comments and the memes and the rhetoric by the OP. They are exactly what you disagree with. OP didn't just say "listen to his side" which is reasonable (albeit dangerous and should be handled by legal rather than personal means)
- ownagefool 10y agoActually the only point I've really made is you shouldn't automatically assume the woman is being resonable whilst also assuming the man is unresonable. I'll happily admit that the converse is also true, but since 90% of the thread has jumped to the conclusion the guy should be fired, it hardly needs to be said. Where you're going wrong, is that you're attributing more to whats actually been said, which is sadly the problem I have with this entire thread.
- nurettin 10y agoAmbiguity and rhetoric does that.