Re: to Tom Robertson
Dec 20, 1996 08:44 PM
by Tom Robertson
At 03:16 AM 12/21/96 +0000, Bart Lidofsky <email@example.com> wrote:
>Tom Robertson wrote:
>> At 12:25 AM 12/21/96 +0000, Bart Lidofsky <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> >Tom Robertson wrote:
>> >> If women have it so much worse than men do, why do they live longer?
>> >> it sexist to believe that the expected longevity of men and women is
>> > As long as you don't believe that, if a woman dies at age 25,
>> >men who reach that birthday must be put to death.
>> > Bart Lidofsky
>> This statement was a challenge to figure out, but, since I have plenty of
>> free time, I thought I would give it a try. I'm still not sure I have done
>> so correctly.
> It is sexist to take a statistical correlation by gender without
>knowing the cause, and insisting on applying it across the board to all
>cases, as in, statistics say that women live longer than men, therefore
>if any man lives longer than any woman, it is unnatural, therefore any
>man who outlives any woman should be put to death.
Who believes this? I would love to see the logical breakdown of how you get
from the fact that women live longer than men on average to the conclusion
that "any man who outlives any woman should be put to death." Are you
trying to say that I believe this?
> Or, if some statistical studies say women are more submissive than men,
>then men should dominate women.
If women are more submissive than men, then men are more dominant than women.
> Or, if some statistical studies say that men concentrate more on logic
>and women concentrate more on emotion, then women should not be in
>positions of authority.
Who believes this?
> In several of your inital message(s) to this newsgroup, you took the
>standpoint (remember, it was you who stated we should not try to read
>between the lines) that a few unsubstantiated statistical correlations
>should govern how all women and all men are treated.
I did? When did I say anything about how all men or how all women should be
>surprise with the level of hostility with which those concepts were
>greeted. I was attempting to use an example that even you would find
>ridiculous to point out the initial illogic.
You are probably going to have to take my word for it, but the illogic is
all yours. That, among much more sinister possibilities, is the kindest
interpretation I have for how thoroughly you have distorted the meaning of
what I said. I will try to believe you have not done so deliberately.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application