Honest question here. I've never understood why some people consider this refuting an argument. For instance, I could say "You shouldn't smoke; you could get cancer." Would it be an intellectual retort to reply with "Not EVERYONE who smokes gets cancer!"? Of course not. The main thrust of the argument remains.
I mean, I've heard others talk about how males make up the majority of criminals; I don't counter with "Not ALL men are criminals!" If I wanted to refute the argument, I'd go for the source.
So why is this so common? Is it because they have no better argument? Are they ignorant of how ineffective it is? What gives?
2007-11-02 03:57:03 · 12 answers · asked by Steve 4 in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
Tracey: Ah, thanks for that. Ya see, when I posted this question, I wondered, "Is someone going to nitpick about my use of a qualifier rather than answering the question?" And you didn't disappoint! Well, you DID disappoint. You know what I mean.
Even if I had worded it as "You'll get cancer," their typical response wouldn't have negated my point: smoking causes a greater risk of contracting cancer. Remember what I said about it not affecting the "main thrust"? Understand?
2007-11-02 17:12:34 · update #1
It's an old trick called "avoiding the question" and I've noticed that feminists (I use the term loosely) seem to do it most often. They just cannot face up to a question. And their approach is so dishonest and petty.
2007-11-02 05:08:24 · answer #1 · answered by celtish 3 · 5⤊ 5⤋
Well, with an issue like smoking dramatically increasing your risk of cancer or there being more male criminals, there are actually hard numbers to back that up.
However, many of the questions that men post on this forum have little to no hard data, and are actually based solely on a few women they've known in their own life. This is not to suggest that their life experiences don't have value, but claims like those can't hold a candle to claims with data to back it up. Also, many of these men base their opinions on things that don't represent real life realistically. For example, if he always goes to the club to meet women but then comes on here and asks "Why are women such slutty bitches?" then clearly he hasn't experienced an accurate representation of women, because he only meets women at clubs.
2007-11-02 12:15:39 · answer #2 · answered by G 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
The reason is to prevent assumptions, which in turn can be pretty dangerous; for instance I could say men are rapist, a man may come back and in his defence say, no not all men are.
No one wants to be assumed as anything, except for what they truly are.
2007-11-02 12:25:17 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
I think you kinda show that it is, while not the most intellectual response, a normal one, especially to a question worded "why do women" or such. Most smokers will answer that not all smokers get cancer and most men, myself included, would state that not all men are criminals or abusers or drunks or even social idiots.
I'm not saying it is intelligent, I'm saying it is normal and makes sense.
Without specific examples given, your general question is more of a feeling than a real complaint.
Why don't people give examples of specific problems, rather than vague feelings?
Not all people do.
2007-11-02 11:07:33 · answer #4 · answered by paigespirate 4 · 2⤊ 4⤋
When you assume that all people are like one example it leads to very narrow interpretations. This type of thinking is what causes labelling and stereotyping.
Just because one man is a pedophile doesn't make all men like that. One woman runs over her cheating husband with a Mercedes doesn't make all women capable of this either.
2007-11-02 12:02:19 · answer #5 · answered by Deirdre O 7 · 4⤊ 4⤋
Addressing your stated concern specifically, the ignorance is in your expectation that merely making a statement will change someone's behavior.
2007-11-02 11:31:57 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Well done!
Yea, I'll go with the "because they have no better argument" on this one.
What you're describing happens EVERY time people bring up the fact that anti-male radicals are welcomed, supported, & hailed in mainstream feminism.
2007-11-02 13:06:19 · answer #7 · answered by hopscotch 5 · 2⤊ 4⤋
You've just answered your own question. "You shouldn't smoke; you could get cancer" contains a qualifying statement..."could." If you said, "You shouldn't smoke you WILL get cancer," that would be faulty, just as it's faulty to ask, "Why do women talk so much?" or "Why are men illiterate and unable to grasp the rules of argument?"
Understand?
2007-11-02 11:56:49 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 6⤋
For arguments sakes, semantics.
2007-11-02 11:05:30 · answer #9 · answered by krennao 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Probably because we're generalized to death.
Like this...
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071102081146AAYvHwX&r=w&pa=FZptHWf.BGRX3OFMiDBVUehnll.4LzTL2Ps.urYo_aUvGqU.UA--&paid=answered#Ao1mJjHtCjBJjkq2OcIT
2007-11-02 11:52:31 · answer #10 · answered by Done 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋