Bob LeChevalier <lojbab at lojban.org> writes:
> Tom Breton <tehom at REMOVEpanNOSPAMix.com> wrote:
>> >Bob LeChevalier <lojbab at lojban.org> writes:
> >> Tom Breton <tehom at REMOVEpanNOSPAMix.com> wrote:
> >First, let me get this out of the way:
> >> >Thus when a prize is shared between man and woman, there's a
> >> >legitimate suspicion that the man provided disproportionately more of
> >> >the gravitas and credibility, since the woman also provided the
> >> >rewarded quality of being female.
> >>
> >> Only for bigots like you who thing that one must be a man to have
> >> gravitas and credibility.
> >
> >Bob, please. I have only respect for you. Can you at least try to
> >respond to my points without personally attacking me?
>> Sorry, but that is what I get from the line.
There is no valid way to get it from that line. One can't logically
disagree with a conclusion without disputing either a premiss or the
logic used.
Let me help you digest it into logical form:
Premiss A: When a prize is given to a joint ticket of A and B,
AND we know that running mate A has quality QA,
AND we know that running mate B lacks quality QA,
AND we don't know the distribution of quality QB,
AND we know that both quality QA and QB are rewarded,
THEN we should suspect that candidate B provided
disproportionately more of quality QB
(Common sense)
Premiss B: The Nobel committee rewards the quality of being female
(Established by argument here)
(plus some trivial premisses instantiating the other variables for
the Nobel situation)
Conclusion: IF a Nobel prize is shared between man and woman, THEN
we should suspect that the man provided disproportionately
more of the gravitas and credibility.
Just to remind you of the way logic operates, one disagrees with one
or more premissess, or with the logic, or does not disagree.
Just so it's clear, the logic used consists of unifying the variables
in premiss A with the particulars of the Nobel situation, so I don't
believe there's a real possibility of logical flaws.
> You would no doubt scoff
> at "Thus when a prize is shared between man and woman, there's a
> legitimate suspicion that the woman provided disproportionately more
> of the gravitas and credibility, since the man also provided the
> rewarded quality of being male." as being sexist AND wrong.
Because the facts demonstrate the opposite. I'd also scoff because
Feminists have cried wolf with exactly that claim unbelievably loud,
long, and often.
> Your
> statement presumes that women were being rewarded with Nobel prizes
> merely for being female.
It doesn't "presume" that. First, you've twisted my words again. I
precisely denied that being female was the *only* criterion, and
repeatedly. In my very first paragraph to you, I said:
And certainly no-one is plucked off the street to be given a
Nobel solely because of their birth group.
I also concluded that post with this paragraph:
Of course, favoritism to women is not the only factor, it's
probably not even the dominant factor, but one shouldn't
overlook it.
You owe it to yourself to have a long think about why you feel so
strongly that you should attribute this position to me, when it's
clearly incompatible with what I said.
Secondly, I did not presume but *showed* that Marie Curie benefitted
from favoritism for her sex.
> That is not only an insult to the women
> getting the prize, but to the Nobel committee.
They'll just have to feel insulted, then. Their feelings don't make
things true or false, and they don't make anti-male bias OK.
It would particularly please me if the Nobel committee felt insulted.
I'd also like the chance to tell them off about awarding the peace
prize to Arafat.
We could continue this, but since you stand by calling me a "bigot"
(your word), I doubt rational discussion would ensue. Besides, it
distresses me to see you committing Feminism. I'm sure that in a few
years you will look back on this exchange and feel bad, but I want you
to know that I have already forgiven you.
--
Tom Breton at panix.com, username tehom. http://www.panix.com/~tehom
