Not *all* men

[Perspicuo]

Not all cigarettes produce legitimately diagnosed lung cancer!!! (Therefore don't say cigarrettes produce lung cancer.)

What's the name of this fallacy?




______________________
I think I found it:  Suppressed correlative.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I understand that some people may feel victimized when they are prevented from broad-brushing a negative stereotype onto an entire category of humanity. I also understand that they should get over that victimization because propagating negative stereotypes is a shitty thing to do.

If people want to have discussions about something as complex as the characteristics of humanity they ought to get used to using a little more nuance and tact. It simply makes communicating your ideas more efficient.

Well said. And it amazes me that people can see this when we talk about muslims, women, black people, or any other group they perceive as victimized, but can't see it when we talk about men.

Nobody here would get riled up if you said any of:

Not all women are submissive
Not all muslims are violent
Not all black people are poor and uneducated

In fact, I think people here can see why saying such things is important in the face of people broad brushing entire categories of humanity.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I understand that some people may feel victimized when they are prevented from broad-brushing a negative stereotype onto an entire category of humanity. I also understand that they should get over that victimization because propagating negative stereotypes is a shitty thing to do.

If people want to have discussions about something as complex as the characteristics of humanity they ought to get used to using a little more nuance and tact. It simply makes communicating your ideas more efficient.

Well said. And it amazes me that people can see this when we talk about muslims, women, black people, or any other group they perceive as victimized, but can't see it when we talk about men.

Nobody here would get riled up if you said any of:

Not all women are submissive
Not all muslims are violent
Not all black people are poor and uneducated

In fact, I think people here can see why saying such things is important in the face of people broad brushing entire categories of humanity.

pointing out that not all (fill in the blank) do this thing or another is not the problem. It's the next step into endless derails and sometimes outright lying that is the problem. And the use of NOT ALL MEN to move the discussion to FEW IF ANY MEN EVER.

(but you guys are smart so you already knew that.)

 

[Nexus]

Not all cigarettes produce legitimately diagnosed lung cancer!!! (Therefore don't say cigarrettes produce lung cancer.)

What's the name of this fallacy?




______________________
I think I found it:  Suppressed correlative.

Actually in this case its a false analogy fallacy. You're comparing cigarettes with a group of humans. The flaw in your analogy is that every cigarette contains the toxins and carcinogens that can lead to cancer. Of course people have different susceptibilities which is the actual reason someone doesn't get cancer immediately from a particular cigarette.

The same doesn't apply to a group of people. Whatever behavioral tendency that group may have doesn't automatically to every member of that group.

 

[Nexus]

pointing out that not all (fill in the blank) do this thing or another is not the problem. It's the next step into endless derails and sometimes outright lying that is the problem. And the use of NOT ALL MEN to move the discussion to FEW IF ANY MEN EVER.

(but you guys are smart so you already knew that.)

This is certainly the case whenever there is a thread about Muslims. We even have a permanent white-knighter for them in our online community.

 

[Bronzeage]

Not all cigarettes produce legitimately diagnosed lung cancer!!! (Therefore don't say cigarrettes produce lung cancer.)

What's the name of this fallacy?




______________________
I think I found it:  Suppressed correlative.

Are there illegitimately diagnosed lung cancers?

 

[dendrast]

Can't we all just avoid sweeping generalizations?

You might as well say that a woman is someone who pays her female employees less.

Men always generalise.

 

[bilby]

OK, but let's stick to the subject. The vast majority of politicians ARE men, the vast majority of criminals ARE men, the vast majority of soldiers ARE men, the vast majority of law enforcement ARE men.

All true. But what possible use is this information?

Are you kidding? It's to show how women spend their entire lives and have ever since there has been - probably - civilization under the control of men.

If the social theory is correct and there has never been a matriarchy as there has been a patriarchy, then men have never been in the same situation as women.

It doesn't help in recognising politicians, criminals, soldiers or members of the law enforcement community.

It helps to emphasize that women are controlled by laws created by men (mostly for men), that the laws are enforced mostly by men, and that if women are ever victimized at home or in the street by crime, it will have been committed mostly by men.

It doesn't help separate politicians from criminals, or from soldiers; it is a singularly useless set of facts.

Not if you're paying attention.

Pick a person at random, and the chances are very, very slim that that person will be in one of those four categories.

They don't have to be. Right now there are 26 million people in the state of Texas. 13 million of them are female, with probably 10 million of them being women or young women. Right now 80% of the politicians in the state of Texas are men. The governor is a man. Right now, the governor and the Houses passed laws that were specifically restrictive to women's family planning clinics that offered abortion.

There were 40 clinics a few years ago.

There are 4 now. For the entire state. In Mississippi, I believe there is one clinic left.

Women don't have to KNOW a politician or a police officer to be negatively affected by men being in charge of society.

That has less to do with the gender of the legislators than with their religion.

Abortions are safe, relatively easy to obtain, and performed by large numbers of clinics in Western Europe, for example; and in those countries, politicians are also overwhelmingly more likely to be men than women.

Texan politicians don't attack women's rights because they are men, they do it because they are religious zealots. And Texan religious zealots who are women would be no better were they in power.

You are objecting to the wrong characteristic; and you are unfairly and unreasonably implying that all people with that characteristic are at fault.

It would be equally reasonable to blame the right-handed for these problems; after all, the vast majority of police, criminals, judges, soldiers and politicians are right-handed.

 

[Deepak]

That has less to do with the gender of the legislators than with their religion.

Abortions are safe, relatively easy to obtain, and performed by large numbers of clinics in Western Europe, for example; and in those countries, politicians are also overwhelmingly more likely to be men than women.

Texan politicians don't attack women's rights because they are men, they do it because they are religious zealots. And Texan religious zealots who are women would be no better were they in power.

You are objecting to the wrong characteristic; and you are unfairly and unreasonably implying that all people with that characteristic are at fault.

It would be equally reasonable to blame the right-handed for these problems; after all, the vast majority of police, criminals, judges, soldiers and politicians are right-handed.

Personally I've never trusted southpaws. Something about them strikes me as sinister.

Can't we all just avoid sweeping generalizations?

You might as well say that a woman is someone who pays her female employees less.

Men always generalise.

Not all...

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Men Everyone always generalises.

 

[bilby]

Personally I've never trusted southpaws. Something about them strikes me as sinister.

What you did there - I saw it.

 

[Unbeatable]

Frankly, I predict that in an alternate reality where only women had decided to run for political office in Texas over the past 30 years that you would be seeing the same sort of outcomes regarding this issue. I predict that voters would still have voted in extremely conservative candidates in most of the districts in Texas; and I expect that abortion related bills would have been proposed and passed just as often. Just because the politicians are men does not directly cause female suppression. In fact, I predict that most female (or male) Republican voters in our regular reality don't see the elimination of abortion clinics in Texas as a "women's issue" at all.

Perhaps what would really make a difference is if in the alternate reality, the brains of a majority of Texans weren't colonized by a patriarchal religion.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

In fact, I predict that most female (or male) Republican voters in our regular reality don't see the elimination of abortion clinics in Texas as a "women's issue" at all.

Most Texans think they see Jesus in their toast, and Sarah Palin is a viable candidate for POTUS.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

But not all texans.

 

[doubtingt]

Not all cigarettes produce legitimately diagnosed lung cancer!!! (Therefore don't say cigarrettes produce lung cancer.)

What's the name of this fallacy?

Which fallacy? The one you are committing by equating that statement about cigarettes to the statement those about men? That is a fallacy of false equivalence.

It is an inherent property of cigarettes that causes their link with cancer. Thus, the general statement about cigarettes is valid. The similar general statements in the OP about "men" (not "some men" but all people who belong to the category of "men") presumes that it is an inherent property of maleness to do each of the things described. Since that is false and sexist, it is quite valid to point out the falseness of the inherent assumption that underlie such statements.

 

[credoconsolans]

I asked what would be different.

Sorry, my mistake.

Obviously women would be in positions of power, they would be legislating laws that did not put them at a disadvantage, their healthcare, education, childcare and rights would be of primary importance and not something to be put off until 'more important' things were dealt with, I think this is all self-evident.

 

[Derec]

Obviously women would be in positions of power, they would be legislating laws that did not put them at a disadvantage,

How is that different than what we have now?
- only men are subject to the draft/selective service
- women are advantaged in divorce/child custody cases
- women are beneficiaries of all kinds of affirmative action programs
- insurance where women cost more (health) is by law prohibited from charging women more, yet insurance where men cost more (life, car) are allowed to charge men more
- bars/clubs discriminate against men by charging women less for drinks/cover.
And many more

 

[Bronzeage]

Obviously women would be in positions of power, they would be legislating laws that did not put them at a disadvantage,

-How is that different than what we have now?
- only men are subject to the draft/selective service

The rule are made by men.

- women are advantaged in divorce/child custody cases

The number of men who actually want custody of their children is very small, compared to the number of children who need custody. When we subtract the assholes who use custody as a way to inflict trouble on the woman who no longer want a relationship with them, the number is very very small. I've been divorced twice and each time child custody was involved. Neither time, did I feel my former wife had an advantage. Despite my payment of child support, her standard of living dropped because we were no longer living together. Whenever I listen to the details from someone who had a bad experience with divorce and custody, I find they brought their problems on themselves.

- women are beneficiaries of all kinds of affirmative action programs

Not sure what you mean here. I've never lost out on a job to a woman who was given some kind of advantage because she was a woman. How many times does this happen?

- insurance where women cost more (health) is by law prohibited from charging women more, yet insurance where men cost more (life, car) are allowed to charge men more.

Don't know where you get this idea. My wife and I are within a year of being the same age and we each have individual major medical policies. Her policy costs more than mine, despite the fact I have had medical costs which far exceed hers. If this is illegal, we'd like our money back.

- bars/clubs discriminate against men by charging women less for drinks/cover.
And many more

OMG, the humanity. In exchange for a lower or no cover, a woman agrees to be bait for men who risk false rape charges by approaching a woman who has been drinking free white zinfandel all night long. Providing a man with a target rich environment is a strange form of discrimination. Maybe this is one of those "pursuit of happiness" human rights we hear so much about.

 

[zorq]

I asked what would be different.

Sorry, my mistake.

Obviously women would be in positions of power, they would be legislating laws that did not put them at a disadvantage, their healthcare, education, childcare and rights would be of primary importance and not something to be put off until 'more important' things were dealt with, I think this is all self-evident.

If you go back to my post you'll see that that is exactly what I'm disputing. It is not self evident at all. As I said, most female Republican voters don't see access to abortion services as a women's issue. If you fill a state's senate with female conservatives you will STILL have politicians working to suppress access to abortion.

Here's a quote from Ann Coulter

If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.

Here's a quote from Mississippi Tea Party leader Janis Lane

“I’m really going to set you back here. Probably the biggest turn we ever made was when the women got the right to vote. Our country might have been better off if it was still just men voting. There is nothing worse than a bunch of mean, hateful women. They are diabolical in how than can skewer a person. I do not see that in men. The whole time I worked, I’d much rather have a male boss than a female boss. Double-minded, you never can trust them.

 

[credoconsolans]

Obviously women would be in positions of power, they would be legislating laws that did not put them at a disadvantage,

How is that different than what we have now?
- only men are subject to the draft/selective service

Men also the only ones who send men into war. Until recently women were denied military service because they think women are weak. Of the women who do join the service, up until recently they were denied combat. Yet, the big promotions are only for those - men - who have been in combat.

- women are advantaged in divorce/child custody cases

Historically women have been give custody of the children but not any of the husband's money or property. That essentially put her and the children below the poverty line. Statistically, single women with children are STILL the poorest people. It's only been in the last few decades that women have starting getting substantial child support.

- women are beneficiaries of all kinds of affirmative action programs

In the last few decades. Women and men and civilization have been around for up to 10,000 years or more?

- insurance where women cost more (health) is by law prohibited from charging women more, yet insurance where men cost more (life, car) are allowed to charge men more

I'd have to see that stats on the health insurance that proves women cost more.

As for life and car insurance, sorry, that's a business decision based on traffic and actuarial statistics. Men need to quit driving like assholes who are going to live forever and maybe their rates will drop.

- bars/clubs discriminate against men by charging women less for drinks/cover.

Business decision. Hardly something that effects women all over the world in their daily lives.