5 ms·

> "[All] Women don't have the lower body strength to [fly any WWII-era military airplane]." No. You're significantly altering the statement with the words you'

> "[All] Women don't have the lower body strength to [fly any WWII-era military airplane]." No. You're significantly altering the statement with the words you're injecting. Consider this: "Dogs have four legs." Would you correct people and point out that there are amputee dogs with fewer than for legs? Most wouldn't, because referring to a group without a qualifier is understood to refer to the majority or state that something is the norm, not that it applies to literally every single item in that group.

mcguire 8y ago
So you are arguing that the original statement should be interpreted as something like, "[Normal] women don't have the lower body strength to [fly normal (?) WWII-era military aircraft]?" That doesn't seem to be a wildly meaningful statement without an addition, "[but normal men do]." Unfortunately, that latter addition doesn't work; according to [1] (an interesting document), 60% of RAF crews were rejected on medical grounds. So we are seemingly left with, "[Normal] women don't have the lower body strength to [fly normal (?) WWII-era military aircraft], [but superior men do]," which once again is approaching the "so what?" stage.
- manfredo 8y ago
  Again you're finding objections not in the words that were actually written, only in the in the ones you have injected. Here's the full paragraph in the original comment: >For example, a B-17 could fly with only one outboard engine running. But the pilot could barely hold the rudder in position to do it, and would trade off with the copilot. Women don't have the lower body strength to do it. Flying a damaged B-17 is just not possible without the leg and upper body strength. It's clear that the commenters recognizes that flying the aircraft pushed male pilots to the extremes of their physical ability, "...the pilot could _barely_ hold the rudder in position..." Furthermore this is in reference to combat situations (a plane with 3 of 4 engines damaged). You're complaints about this comment do far have been that it: * Denied the existence of _any_ women that could perform these tasks. This wasn't claimed, see the "dogs have four legs" comparison. * Claimed that women couldn't fly "normal" WWII aircraft. No, the commenter highlighted a combat scenario of flying a damaged plane that pushed pilots to their physical limit. * That the average man could be a pilot. I don't see where this is claimed in the original comment. It actually states the opposite, that piloting in combat demanded peak physical performance. Again, the Motte and Bailey only exists if you're injecting some other message. The point is simply that piloting a WWII aircraft in combat was physically extremely intense and demanded physical ability beyond typical women (a point corroborated by your evidence that even most men were rejected for their physical condition).
  - romwell 8y ago
    Right, because subtlety and implication aren't a part of communication, especially in English, which is so precise that sentences in it are practically computer code.
    - manfredo 8y ago
      I wholeheartedly agree that implication is important. That's why the interpretation of the original comment you have made in this reply chain is ineffective. It fails to adhere to the commonly understood implication that unspecified references to a group refers to the majority or the norm - not every single member of that group. "Dogs have four legs" != "Every single dog that exists has four legs"
      - WalterBright 8y ago
        In fact, the entire reason we have qualifications like "all" and "every single" is because the word by itself refers to the norm.
      - romwell 8y ago
        Sure, sure. The following is just as true then: >For example, a B-17 could fly with only one outboard engine running. But the pilot could barely hold the rudder in position to do it, and would trade off with the copilot. Men don't have the lower body strength to do it. Flying a damaged B-17 is just not possible without the leg and upper body strength. Because, as you say, dogs =/= all dogs (and men =/= all men).
        manfredo 8y ago
        Sure. The statement that, "men don't have the lower body strength to do it" is true. That has no impact on the veracity of the original claim that, "women don't have the lower body strength to do it".
  - WalterBright 8y ago
    Pilots also were put through boot camp (which has a heavy emphasis on physical strength building). Being a pilot was in demand for its prestige (first with the ladies!) and extra pay, so the Air Corps had their pick of the finest men. Retaining flying status meant passing regular physicals, too.

mcguire 8y ago

So you are arguing that the original statement should be interpreted as something like, "[Normal] women don't have the lower body strength to [fly normal (?) WWII-era military aircraft]?" That doesn't seem to be a wildly meaningful statement without an addition, "[but normal men do]." Unfortunately, that latter addition doesn't work; according to [1] (an interesting document), 60% of RAF crews were rejected on medical grounds. So we are seemingly left with, "[Normal] women don't have the lower body strength to [fly normal (?) WWII-era military aircraft], [but superior men do]," which once again is approaching the "so what?" stage.

manfredo 8y ago
Again you're finding objections not in the words that were actually written, only in the in the ones you have injected. Here's the full paragraph in the original comment: >For example, a B-17 could fly with only one outboard engine running. But the pilot could barely hold the rudder in position to do it, and would trade off with the copilot. Women don't have the lower body strength to do it. Flying a damaged B-17 is just not possible without the leg and upper body strength. It's clear that the commenters recognizes that flying the aircraft pushed male pilots to the extremes of their physical ability, "...the pilot could _barely_ hold the rudder in position..." Furthermore this is in reference to combat situations (a plane with 3 of 4 engines damaged). You're complaints about this comment do far have been that it: * Denied the existence of _any_ women that could perform these tasks. This wasn't claimed, see the "dogs have four legs" comparison. * Claimed that women couldn't fly "normal" WWII aircraft. No, the commenter highlighted a combat scenario of flying a damaged plane that pushed pilots to their physical limit. * That the average man could be a pilot. I don't see where this is claimed in the original comment. It actually states the opposite, that piloting in combat demanded peak physical performance. Again, the Motte and Bailey only exists if you're injecting some other message. The point is simply that piloting a WWII aircraft in combat was physically extremely intense and demanded physical ability beyond typical women (a point corroborated by your evidence that even most men were rejected for their physical condition).
- romwell 8y ago
  Right, because subtlety and implication aren't a part of communication, especially in English, which is so precise that sentences in it are practically computer code.
  - manfredo 8y ago
    I wholeheartedly agree that implication is important. That's why the interpretation of the original comment you have made in this reply chain is ineffective. It fails to adhere to the commonly understood implication that unspecified references to a group refers to the majority or the norm - not every single member of that group. "Dogs have four legs" != "Every single dog that exists has four legs"
    - WalterBright 8y ago
      In fact, the entire reason we have qualifications like "all" and "every single" is because the word by itself refers to the norm.
    - romwell 8y ago
      Sure, sure. The following is just as true then: >For example, a B-17 could fly with only one outboard engine running. But the pilot could barely hold the rudder in position to do it, and would trade off with the copilot. Men don't have the lower body strength to do it. Flying a damaged B-17 is just not possible without the leg and upper body strength. Because, as you say, dogs =/= all dogs (and men =/= all men).
      - manfredo 8y ago
        Sure. The statement that, "men don't have the lower body strength to do it" is true. That has no impact on the veracity of the original claim that, "women don't have the lower body strength to do it".
- WalterBright 8y ago
  Pilots also were put through boot camp (which has a heavy emphasis on physical strength building). Being a pilot was in demand for its prestige (first with the ladies!) and extra pay, so the Air Corps had their pick of the finest men. Retaining flying status meant passing regular physicals, too.