"Tom Breton" <tehom at REMOVEpanNOSPAMix.com> wrote in message
news:m3it212v2e.fsf at panix.com...
> 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
Do you know what you're dealing with here, Tom?
Women's intuition.
John Knight
