2 ms·

"The statement you make is essentially that all behavior has an explanation behind it, no matter how distasteful or uncivilized. Fine, agreed. First, what is th

"The statement you make is essentially that all behavior has an explanation behind it, no matter how distasteful or uncivilized. Fine, agreed. First, what is the value in pointing out this obvious conclusion?" No more value than the author of the article provides by pointing out she got hit on / harassed in a crowded bar full of males. "You then continue to say that because behavior has an explanation, that behavior cannot be sexism." I do not believe I ever said that, point it out to me if I am wrong. What I did say is that sexism is a different thing from say, sexual harassment, misogyny, sexuality, sex-drives, or anything else with the word sex in it. Like I pointed out before, my original gripe is that "sexism" is used incorrectly here. Call it sexual harassment, then we are good. On the topic of complaining about sexual harassment - yes go forth and complain, or don't. I really don't care, but either way the words will be lost in the wind. The only thing you could do to prevent this behavior is make stricter laws about sexual harassment, and do we really want that? Should we start arresting people when they hit on others, unwarranted, in a bar, where single people go to find mates? As for everything else, I'm not going to waste a bunch of time typing out answers because you seem to have derived many conclusions, some of which are true, but most have nothing to do with my actual arguments (they are related to the topic of sexism, so bonus points there). I say this with all due respect, and no sarcasm: this will help you construct better arguments and avoid fallacies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

jessedhillon 14y ago
Actually, that is exactly your case. You place an appeal to nature next to claims of why the story is not an example of sexism. You supplied a nature-derived argument as a counter to my argument that the behavior fit your definition of sexism. You are arguing that naturally explained behavior is not sexist! And simultaneously you are denying the conclusions of that argument. I don't mind telling you either, that a key part of your argument is actually bullshit. You're relying entirely on categorical statements about an entire class of people, substantiated with nothing more than intuition and a trip to Cancun! It's amazing that, with an argument like this, you could be so smug as to suggest a reading of a list of fallacies. You should go into sales.
- gavanwoolery 14y ago
  List of fallacies is useful, I need it myself as I am as prone to making them as anyone else (I bet you can find at least 10 in my arguments). I would suck at sales. ;)

jessedhillon 14y ago

Actually, that is exactly your case. You place an appeal to nature next to claims of why the story is not an example of sexism. You supplied a nature-derived argument as a counter to my argument that the behavior fit your definition of sexism. You are arguing that naturally explained behavior is not sexist! And simultaneously you are denying the conclusions of that argument. I don't mind telling you either, that a key part of your argument is actually bullshit. You're relying entirely on categorical statements about an entire class of people, substantiated with nothing more than intuition and a trip to Cancun! It's amazing that, with an argument like this, you could be so smug as to suggest a reading of a list of fallacies. You should go into sales.

gavanwoolery 14y ago
List of fallacies is useful, I need it myself as I am as prone to making them as anyone else (I bet you can find at least 10 in my arguments). I would suck at sales. ;)