5 ms·

I see, women are going to share their traumatic experience in tech. BTW, this discussion is just silly because there are millions of meet Ups in tech filled wi

I see, women are going to share their traumatic experience in tech. BTW, this discussion is just silly because there are millions of meet Ups in tech filled with only men, but in the other hand meet ups of rape survivors not accepting men would be just evil, men are a minority in that group, it would be like a tech company not accepting any women.

jessedhillon 14y ago
Ok. Good luck trying to convince them to let you in, I'm sure your unassailable logic misses nothing obvious. Make sure you let them know that it's evil for you not to be allowed in.
- jQueryIsAwesome 14y ago
  What? Fortunately I wasn't talking about me, just men victims of rape. And doesn't matter if they follow my logic or not, we are discussing what's right, not the logic of the organizers of such meetings.
  - jessedhillon 14y ago
    If you can't take your knowledge of "what's right" and actually change objective reality with it in a useful way, then it's dubious as to whether what you know is actually true. And IMO you would not be able to convince a female survivors group to let you in with logic, so again, I doubt strongly that it actually corresponds to truth.
    - jQueryIsAwesome 14y ago
      Why you keep suggesting I'm talking about me?... are you just trolling?
      - jessedhillon 14y ago
        I assumed that you would take ownership of the argument you're forwarding, and at least monetarily, you could put yourself in the position of someone who would try to employ your logic. To do otherwise would be arguing in bad faith. And whether or not you are the person employing the logic, the point remains: a person couldn't take your argument and do something useful, like convince a group that he should be allowe in, and so I really have to wonder in what sense you think this argument is true. Presumably because it exhibits logical consistency, which by itself is irrelevant (cf bounded rationality)
        jQueryIsAwesome 14y ago
        > a person couldn't take your argument and do something useful, like convince a group that he should be allowe in Have you heard about civil war? That was one group trying to convince another that some people should be allowed in. And anyway; I wasn't making an abstraction but the very evil segregation such as rape victims meetups excluding men. Unsurprisingly these meetups don't exist in reality; there are some about violence or abusive relationships in general.
        jessedhillon 14y ago
        You obviously don't know what you're talking about if you think there are no female-only rape survivor groups.
        jQueryIsAwesome 14y ago
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem But is not the classic case of Ad-hominem, you did a deduction from point B to make a personal attack to deny the validness of point A. Interesting.
        jessedhillon 14y ago
        It's not as hominem to say that you do not have facts. Moreover, I already said that being logically correct is not my aim. Your argument lacks relevance or informedness, so you can make as many valid points as you want, your words simply have no correlation to reality.

jessedhillon 14y ago

Ok. Good luck trying to convince them to let you in, I'm sure your unassailable logic misses nothing obvious. Make sure you let them know that it's evil for you not to be allowed in.

jQueryIsAwesome 14y ago
What? Fortunately I wasn't talking about me, just men victims of rape. And doesn't matter if they follow my logic or not, we are discussing what's right, not the logic of the organizers of such meetings.
- jessedhillon 14y ago
  If you can't take your knowledge of "what's right" and actually change objective reality with it in a useful way, then it's dubious as to whether what you know is actually true. And IMO you would not be able to convince a female survivors group to let you in with logic, so again, I doubt strongly that it actually corresponds to truth.
  - jQueryIsAwesome 14y ago
    Why you keep suggesting I'm talking about me?... are you just trolling?
    - jessedhillon 14y ago
      I assumed that you would take ownership of the argument you're forwarding, and at least monetarily, you could put yourself in the position of someone who would try to employ your logic. To do otherwise would be arguing in bad faith. And whether or not you are the person employing the logic, the point remains: a person couldn't take your argument and do something useful, like convince a group that he should be allowe in, and so I really have to wonder in what sense you think this argument is true. Presumably because it exhibits logical consistency, which by itself is irrelevant (cf bounded rationality)
      - jQueryIsAwesome 14y ago
        > a person couldn't take your argument and do something useful, like convince a group that he should be allowe in Have you heard about civil war? That was one group trying to convince another that some people should be allowed in. And anyway; I wasn't making an abstraction but the very evil segregation such as rape victims meetups excluding men. Unsurprisingly these meetups don't exist in reality; there are some about violence or abusive relationships in general.
        jessedhillon 14y ago
        You obviously don't know what you're talking about if you think there are no female-only rape survivor groups.
        jQueryIsAwesome 14y ago
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem But is not the classic case of Ad-hominem, you did a deduction from point B to make a personal attack to deny the validness of point A. Interesting.
        jessedhillon 14y ago
        It's not as hominem to say that you do not have facts. Moreover, I already said that being logically correct is not my aim. Your argument lacks relevance or informedness, so you can make as many valid points as you want, your words simply have no correlation to reality.