3 ms·
your argument was this: "What, you can only be upset about sexism if you've had children?" which is an absurd takeaway from their comment. unless of course, you
by catshirt 14y ago
your argument was this: "What, you can only be upset about sexism if you've had children?" which is an absurd takeaway from their comment. unless of course, you leave out "If you really think this is the cause of lack of women in CS". which you did.
"he's saying that you can't comment on this if you've never had a daughter to raise".
no, i don't believe that's what he's saying at all and i have no idea how you extrapolate that. moreso, i'm not sure we have sufficient evidence that cheeze is male like you suggest.
- chris_wot 14y agoHe said you would have had to raise a woman. The second part of the sentence leads from the first - he's saying that only those who "raised a woman" can think a certain way about sexism. It's easy to disprove it too. It's a universal quantifier. If I find just one person who had "raised a woman" who thinks the way he says you can't, then the proposition is proven false.
- catshirt 14y agomy point of contention is that you posit cheez's position was both: "you can only be upset about sexism if..." and "you can't comment on this if...". i fail to see how you've inferred either of those sentiments from the original post without making a lot of assumptions.
- chris_wot 14y agosp332 has pointed out I was following a fallacious line of reasoning. Nonetheless, as a father of a small girl, I can and am annoyed by sexism in CS and IT. Ergo, I am living proof that the proposition is false.