4 ms·

This person has a bunch of essays but he comes across as an sad person who doesn't believe in civil rights for women. In an eassy on his website [1], he says "

This person has a bunch of essays but he comes across as an sad person who doesn't believe in civil rights for women. In an eassy on his website [1], he says "Men have natural abilities and disposition towards leadership. To deny this, to mandate equality of results, to push women into masculine roles, to domesticate and feminize men, only results in misery for both men and women. Universal suffrage elections are virtually always a bad idea." 1. https://devinhelton.com/principles-of-formalism https://devinhelton.com/principles-of-formalism

arghbleargh 10y ago
Not to say that the thing about men vs. women isn't problematic, but that quote is taken out of context. The suffrage part is a completely separate bullet point and isn't saying that women shouldn't have the right to vote as your quote suggests. Also, the main point preceding the quote that men and women may have different natural dispositions is a reasonable one. He only oversteps by implying men are better leaders, a claim that may be defensible under some very specific definition of "good leadership" but is mostly just inflammatory in this case.
- NotSammyHagar 10y ago
  You are right, I didn't notice at first that I was conflating two different ideas. Thanks for the correction! But it is a short step from "men have natural abilities and disposition toward leadership" and "people shouldn't have universal sufferage" to women shouldn't vote.
calcsam 10y ago
Ah, he's an NRx guy....
overgard 10y ago
This is like the definition of an ad-hominem attack. Your argument is basically "he believes some unpopular things so all his ideas should be discredited." I dont know this guy and I doubt I think the way he thinks, but the essay is the essay -- it should stand or fall on its own merits.
- NotSammyHagar 10y ago
  Saying women shouldn't be able to full civil rights is like saying gay people shouldn't be counted a full humans, or using the n word for black people. It's just not acceptable, in my opinion, and taints anything one writes. It's beyond the pale.
  - overgard 10y ago
    So your point is that we should ignore any point he made because he thinks something bad on a separate topic? You realize if thats your standard you should probably exclude most famous historical philosophers, along with the 6 billion or so living humans who dont subscribe to modern western philosophy. It turns out you can learn something from people that dont share your values. Or you can read Jezebel all day and ride the outrage train.
    - NotSammyHagar 10y ago
      I do understand that anyone from history will have held views that are morally repugnant to anyone in the modern world. Think of Thomas Jefferson and having children with his slaves and I think those children were slaves, while also thinking about the universal rights of man (and not women, blacks, or non-landholding white men). But there is a historic millieu that one has to use to judge that person's views and ideas within, and that does allow me to consider the views of people from antiquity. But that notion also applies to judging the ideas of people writing in the world that I live in. Today, it's just clear that women should have civil rights and be equal partners in society with men. It's silly to state otherwise, and so when someone who is a contemporary states otherwise, it does call into question their views.
      - overgard 10y ago
        To be fair though, if you believe people from antiquity had some highly problematic views (no doubt), then wouldn't it be easy to extrapolate that people a hundred years from now are going to look on your beliefs in horror? I cant imagine slave owners thought they were bad people either. It's easy to write it off because you'll be long gone, so who cares, but we'd be a much better society if we realized a lot of what we think is fundamentally true tends to historically go in and out of fashion, and the people that are out of fashion tend to have ideas most of us havent heard. Again Im not arguing for his views, Im just saying, the reason we have the concept of logical fallacies (ad-hominem being one of them) is history is long and these ideas have worked well.

arghbleargh 10y ago

Not to say that the thing about men vs. women isn't problematic, but that quote is taken out of context. The suffrage part is a completely separate bullet point and isn't saying that women shouldn't have the right to vote as your quote suggests. Also, the main point preceding the quote that men and women may have different natural dispositions is a reasonable one. He only oversteps by implying men are better leaders, a claim that may be defensible under some very specific definition of "good leadership" but is mostly just inflammatory in this case.

NotSammyHagar 10y ago
You are right, I didn't notice at first that I was conflating two different ideas. Thanks for the correction! But it is a short step from "men have natural abilities and disposition toward leadership" and "people shouldn't have universal sufferage" to women shouldn't vote.

calcsam 10y ago

Ah, he's an NRx guy....

overgard 10y ago

This is like the definition of an ad-hominem attack. Your argument is basically "he believes some unpopular things so all his ideas should be discredited." I dont know this guy and I doubt I think the way he thinks, but the essay is the essay -- it should stand or fall on its own merits.

NotSammyHagar 10y ago
Saying women shouldn't be able to full civil rights is like saying gay people shouldn't be counted a full humans, or using the n word for black people. It's just not acceptable, in my opinion, and taints anything one writes. It's beyond the pale.
- overgard 10y ago
  So your point is that we should ignore any point he made because he thinks something bad on a separate topic? You realize if thats your standard you should probably exclude most famous historical philosophers, along with the 6 billion or so living humans who dont subscribe to modern western philosophy. It turns out you can learn something from people that dont share your values. Or you can read Jezebel all day and ride the outrage train.
  - NotSammyHagar 10y ago
    I do understand that anyone from history will have held views that are morally repugnant to anyone in the modern world. Think of Thomas Jefferson and having children with his slaves and I think those children were slaves, while also thinking about the universal rights of man (and not women, blacks, or non-landholding white men). But there is a historic millieu that one has to use to judge that person's views and ideas within, and that does allow me to consider the views of people from antiquity. But that notion also applies to judging the ideas of people writing in the world that I live in. Today, it's just clear that women should have civil rights and be equal partners in society with men. It's silly to state otherwise, and so when someone who is a contemporary states otherwise, it does call into question their views.
    - overgard 10y ago
      To be fair though, if you believe people from antiquity had some highly problematic views (no doubt), then wouldn't it be easy to extrapolate that people a hundred years from now are going to look on your beliefs in horror? I cant imagine slave owners thought they were bad people either. It's easy to write it off because you'll be long gone, so who cares, but we'd be a much better society if we realized a lot of what we think is fundamentally true tends to historically go in and out of fashion, and the people that are out of fashion tend to have ideas most of us havent heard. Again Im not arguing for his views, Im just saying, the reason we have the concept of logical fallacies (ad-hominem being one of them) is history is long and these ideas have worked well.