3 ms·
Hm... your first inclination was to think you "must be missing something". Why not follow up on that thread? What you're missing is all of the context around
by jmull 7y ago
Hm... your first inclination was to think you "must be missing something".
Why not follow up on that thread?
What you're missing is all of the context around this, both historical and current, which advance the idea that women ought not to even have the opportunity to compete in darts with men. More generally, women have very often been denied opportunities afforded to men across the board, based simply on their gender.
(Personally, I don't have a special interest in women's issues, but I do have an interest in fairness and justice and basic human rights. From that perspective, breaking down a bullshit barrier keeping a group down based on superficial traits is awesome.)
- antisthenes 7y ago> What you're missing is all of the context around this, both historical and current, which advance the idea that women ought not to even have the opportunity to compete in darts with men. Oof. If I ever write a book about logical fallacies, I'll put these words right next to the strawman one. When I came into this thread, prior to reading the comments, my first thought was to be curious as to why women wouldn't be just as good at darts as men are. After all, no physical advantage typical of men is needed to win at darts. Strength is irrelevant here. So is reaction time. Have women in particular been denied the opportunity to play competitive darts? Don't generalize it, just think about the darts field. If that is true, then you can say you've made an argument in good faith.
- jmull 7y agoHow can context be a logical fallacy? Context is just a set of commonly understood facts and arguments that aren’t stated under the assumption the audience is either already aware or can become so without too much trouble.
- antisthenes 7y agoYour argument was a strawman, which is a logical fallacy. I'm not sure how I can be more clear.