5 ms·

> Because porn objectifies women Gay porn invalidates your argument.

• dagw 9y ago
  This isn't math. A counter-example doesn't invalidate the whole argument.
  • tallanvor 9y ago
    It does if the argument is being made in absolutes. You could say "some porn objectifies women", or even "most porn targeted at straight men objectifies women", but making the claim that porn in general objectifies women is patently false.
    • coldtea 9y ago
      >It does if the argument is being made in absolutes Casual talk is not dealing in absolutes. We're not speaking in theorems and axioms. Even if someone says "people are idiots" they don't mean "X, for every X where X a person, is an idiot". Note how they didn't even say "all porn": just "porn objectifies women". In casual speak even saying "all X does Y" is not necessarily intended to convey "absolutely all X". Just saying "X does Y" even less so. >You could say "some porn objectifies women", or even "most porn targeted at straight men objectifies women", but making the claim that porn in general objectifies women is patently false. No, it's perfectly OK (if a little beyond the point, see my other answer). Here's how to read the phrase of the parent in casual conversation: Porn objectifies women (when there are women in it -- DUH!). Most porn, that is -- some special snowflake outlier porn with women in it might not objectify them, and that's ok (DUH!). I'm talking about what generally happens, and what people actually get to see most of the time when they watch porn, not what some Peruvian feminist porn might show (DUH!). I also know there's animal porn, which obviously doesn't objectify women (DUH!) In general, if how one interprets a conversational statement can be taken down by the addition of a few "DUH!", then probably this is not the interpretation intended by the original speaker. That's the "principle of charity".
      • Chris2048 9y ago
        > if someone says "people are idiots" they don't mean "X, for every X... It can do, it depends on context. When a statement is ambiguous, you have to infer meaning from context. > That's the "principle of charity". What about the "principle of unambiguous speech"? If a conversational statement can be taken down with a few "DUH!", people will try harder to be precise in their communication.
        • coldtea 9y ago
          >It can do, it depends on context. When a statement is ambiguous, you have to infer meaning from context. That's the whole art of casual conversation -- or any conversation for that matter, even the most rigorous scientific paper depends on millions of context-based assumptions.
          • Chris2048 9y ago
            > even the most rigorous scientific paper There is a lot of explicit convention in science, it is not the same as general "art of casual conversation"; Scientists will likely have explicit qualification, and provide stats and data. More so for Law, were stakes are arguably even higher. Anyway, in this case you made a absolute claim ("they don't mean") that isn't necessarily true. They can mean that. How do you demonstrate that this isn't true, if is so subjective (an "art")? The answer, would be to incentivise clear, unambiguous language; at least in technical, specific conversations.
            • coldtea 9y ago
              >Anyway, in this case you made a absolute claim ("they don't mean") that isn't necessarily true. They can mean that. I made it in casual conversation myself. They can -- it's physically possible. But generally (statistically significantly) they don't.
              • Chris2048 9y ago
                > But generally they don't I don't think so, and neither did the original respondent.