Gender Discussion - Split from 'My City, Minneapolis, On Fire'

[Rhea]

.
.
Reminder to all posters: The discussions are interesting (and the intent of the forum), the personal flames are not (and are against the TOU). Address the argument, not the person. Add to the nuance of the discussion, don’t subtract from it.


Before you click post, ask yourself - is my comment about the topic, or about the person? Ask - am I adding to discovery and communication, or am I slinging mud?



The topic is fraught. Please remind yourself to be interesting and thoughtful, not pugnacious.

 

[laughing dog]

It is not a straw man. It is implicit in Toni's phrasing. Toni is as responsible for her unstated premises as she is for stated ones.

The only person responsible for your inferences is you.

It was not a snipe. I asked her how her assertion could be true.

You called it incoherent.

What opinion? That white men and white women have the same ancestors? True by definition.

You keep babbling that tautology as if it is relevant. It is not.

What Toni wrote is incoherent. That isn't some generalised insult. It means one part does not cohere with another. White women must have the same families that white men have. You can't talk about 'their family' (white men), as if white men and white women don't share the exact same ancestors.

For Toni's comment to be true, it must be that her brother's ancestors were able to acquire wealth better than her own ancestors. Except that they're the exact same ancestors.

No, it means that men had more access to the same wealth. In fact, if the men inherited it, the women did not.

In order to successively read between the lines, one must master reading the actual lines first.

 

[Metaphor]

The only person responsible for your inferences is you.

Non. Hidden and unstated assumptions are the responsibility of the person making the argument.

You called it incoherent.

Yes, it is incoherent.

incoherent


/ɪnkə(ʊ)ˈhɪər(ə)nt/

not logical or internally consistent.

"the film is ideologically incoherent"

I will remind everybody what Toni wrote:

2. It is easier for (in general)/more likely for a white male person to qualify for a business loan because they are more likely to have some wealth already because for hundreds of years, their family was able to acquire and maintain wealth to a much greater extent than women have been able to

Toni states here white male persons have access to wealth because for hundreds of years, the (ancestral) families of white male persons were able to acquire and maintain wealth.

All that I did was point out how if the ancestors of white male persons were able to generate the wealth, the ancestors of white female persons must be in the exact same position.

You keep babbling that tautology as if it is relevant. It is not.

I will keep "babbling" about it until you acknowledge that is what Toni wrote.

I will remind you again:

2. It is easier for (in general)/more likely for a white male person to qualify for a business loan because they are more likely to have some wealth already because for hundreds of years, their family was able to acquire and maintain wealth to a much greater extent than women have been able to

No, it means that men had more access to the same wealth. In fact, if the men inherited it, the women did not.

No, it does not mean that. Toni's statement says they have the wealth already because their family earned it and kept it. She does not say "and the current generation of men inherited it exclusively at the expense of the current generation of women and/or the current generation of men acquired investment in their human capital that their sisters did not".

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

2. It is easier for (in general)/more likely for a white male person to qualify for a business loan because they are more likely to have some wealth already because for hundreds of years, their family was able to acquire and maintain wealth to a much greater extent than women have been able to

No, it means that men had more access to the same wealth. In fact, if the men inherited it, the women did not.

No, it does not mean that. Toni's statement says they have the wealth already because their family earned it and kept it. She does not say "and the current generation of men inherited it exclusively at the expense of the current generation of women and/or the current generation of men acquired investment in their human capital that their sisters did not".

Did she need to? Are you not capable of figuring that out on your own?

 

[Metaphor]

No, it does not mean that. Toni's statement says they have the wealth already because their family earned it and kept it. She does not say "and the current generation of men inherited it exclusively at the expense of the current generation of women and/or the current generation of men acquired investment in their human capital that their sisters did not".

Did she need to? Are you not capable of figuring that out on your own?

I am not given the luxury of misstating something or misphrasing something on this board without somebody hounding me relentlessly over it, even when my intent was obvious.

And, I was indeed capable of figuring out what she might have meant. But to clarify that, I asked her if that is what she meant. I asked her if differential inheritance and/or differential human capital investment in the current generation by white families is what she meant, and if she had evidence of it.

Toni responded, but with a series of irrelevancies--irrelevancies I had already pointed out where irrelevant.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For the people interested in honest discourse, this is what Toni wrote:

2. It is easier for (in general)/more likely for a white male person to qualify for a business loan because they are more likely to have some wealth already because for hundreds of years, their family was able to acquire and maintain wealth to a much greater extent than women have been able to

What Toni wrote is incoherent. That isn't some generalised insult. It means one part does not cohere with another. White women must have the same families that white men have. You can't talk about 'their family' (white men), as if white men and white women don't share the exact same ancestors.

I believe you are using the wrong word here.

I do not find her words incoherent--they spell out a position perfectly well, it's just an impossible position. I believe the word you are after is "inconsistent".

 

[Jarhyn]

No, it does not mean that. Toni's statement says they have the wealth already because their family earned it and kept it. She does not say "and the current generation of men inherited it exclusively at the expense of the current generation of women and/or the current generation of men acquired investment in their human capital that their sisters did not".

Did she need to? Are you not capable of figuring that out on your own?

I am not given the luxury of misstating something or misphrasing something on this board without somebody hounding me relentlessly over it, even when my intent was obvious.

And, I was indeed capable of figuring out what she might have meant. But to clarify that, I asked her if that is what she meant. I asked her if differential inheritance and/or differential human capital investment in the current generation by white families is what she meant, and if she had evidence of it.

Toni responded, but with a series of irrelevancies--irrelevancies I had already pointed out where irrelevant.

Then learn to apologise, revise, and clarify. Or better not, not participate (or create) details.

This is a derail. It is off topic. The thread is about the consequences of white supremecy, and how such positions have led to widespread riots yet again. It wasn't created for discussing gender disparities, though for reference, I acknowledge that there are gender disparities and those are bad.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm sorry if you didn't understand what I wrote.

In some states until quite recently, women did not have the right to own property in their own right. Suppose the daughter of a wealthy family, an only child, were to marry. Her inheritance and property were his outright. Until 1974, women did not have the same rights to get a credit card or a mortgage, often requiring a male co-signer, even if she were single, self supporting or the main support of her family.

1974 is 46 years ago. Someone who was 18 then (you can't get credit if you're under 18, period) would be 64 now--about to retire. Thus there are very few women in the workforce who could possibly have been held back this way.

This made it very difficult for women to raise the necessary capital to start a business, for example. Women today still typically pay a higher interest rate on loans compared with men of equal qualifications.

[Citation needed]

In addition, some families leave different assets to different children, based on gender. It was not uncommon for a farmer or small business owner to leave that farm or business to his son or sons rather than any daughters because it was assumed that daughters would marry men who would provide for them. This still happens today. In addition, parents sometimes leave larger portions or an entire estate to one child or exclude a child specifically for any number of reasons, good and bad.

But this is a quite small percentage of women.

 

[laughing dog]

Non. Hidden and unstated assumptions are the responsibility of the person making the argument.



Yes, it is incoherent.

incoherent


/ɪnkə(ʊ)ˈhɪər(ə)nt/

not logical or internally consistent.

"the film is ideologically incoherent"

I will remind everybody what Toni wrote:

2. It is easier for (in general)/more likely for a white male person to qualify for a business loan because they are more likely to have some wealth already because for hundreds of years, their family was able to acquire and maintain wealth to a much greater extent than women have been able to

Toni states here white male persons have access to wealth because for hundreds of years, the (ancestral) families of white male persons were able to acquire and maintain wealth.

All that I did was point out how if the ancestors of white male persons were able to generate the wealth, the ancestors of white female persons must be in the exact same position.

You keep babbling that tautology as if it is relevant. It is not.

I will keep "babbling" about it until you acknowledge that is what Toni wrote.

I will remind you again:

2. It is easier for (in general)/more likely for a white male person to qualify for a business loan because they are more likely to have some wealth already because for hundreds of years, their family was able to acquire and maintain wealth to a much greater extent than women have been able to

No, it means that men had more access to the same wealth. In fact, if the men inherited it, the women did not.

No, it does not mean that. Toni's statement says they have the wealth already because their family earned it and kept it. She does not say "and the current generation of men inherited it exclusively at the expense of the current generation of women and/or the current generation of men acquired investment in their human capital that their sisters did not".

It does not require exclusivity. Here is an example that might help you finally understand that you are wrong. Parents have a daughter and a son. When the parents pass, their will specifies that the son gets X% of the wealth and the daughter get 1-x% of the wealth. As long as x>50, the entire wealth stays in the remaining nuclear family but the daughter has less access to it.

Here is another example. My cousins and I have the share one set of grandparents. But we did not inherit the same amount of wealth from them. Even though we have the same ancestors, the current generation does not have the same access to that wealth.

Your argument has been and still is invalid.

 

[Metaphor]

It does not require exclusivity. Here is an example that might help you finally understand that you are wrong. Parents have a daughter and a son. When the parents pass, their will specifies that the son gets X% of the wealth and the daughter get 1-x% of the wealth. As long as x>50, the entire wealth stays in the remaining nuclear family but the daughter has less access to it.

Has this happened in the current generation? Where is your evidence?

Where is the evidence that white women inherit less than white men in the current generation?

Here is another example. My cousins and I have the share one set of grandparents. But we did not inherit the same amount of wealth from them. Even though we have the same ancestors, the current generation does not have the same access to that wealth.

You only share the exact same ancestors with your siblings, not your cousins. This is important to note, and it's why I specifically said brothers and sisters, not cousins or anything else.

But, what on earth is it you imagine your story proves? Did those grandparents bequeath wealth to grandsons but not granddaughters? Them doing that, and grandparents doing that systematically across the nation in the current generation, would be required for white women to have less access to ancestral wealth than white men.

It doesn't make an iota of difference if your cousins got more or less than you, whether that's because there were more children in that family or your aunts and uncles made more money themselves, or whatever other reason except favouritism for boys in the current generation in terms of inheritance.

Show the evidence or withdraw the claim.

Your argument has been and still is invalid.

Honestly, I thought you understood before and you were simply trolling me with fake obliviousness. It seems you are actually oblivious.

 

[Jarhyn]

Has this happened in the current generation? Where is your evidence?

Where is the evidence that white women inherit less than white men in the current generation?



You only share the exact same ancestors with your siblings, not your cousins. This is important to note, and it's why I specifically said brothers and sisters, not cousins or anything else.

But, what on earth is it you imagine your story proves? Did those grandparents bequeath wealth to grandsons but not granddaughters? Them doing that, and grandparents doing that systematically across the nation in the current generation, would be required for white women to have less access to ancestral wealth than white men.

It doesn't make an iota of difference if your cousins got more or less than you, whether that's because there were more children in that family or your aunts and uncles made more money themselves, or whatever other reason except favouritism for boys in the current generation in terms of inheritance.

Show the evidence or withdraw the claim.

Your argument has been and still is invalid.

Honestly, I thought you understood before and you were simply trolling me with fake obliviousness. It seems you are actually oblivious.

"Show evidence or withdraw the claim"... Hmmm...

I think I recall a recent conversation where I asked as much, and you refused.

Of course, I add the caveat that your "evidence" actually supports your conclusion.

But here you are...

 

[Metaphor]

Has this happened in the current generation? Where is your evidence?

Where is the evidence that white women inherit less than white men in the current generation?



You only share the exact same ancestors with your siblings, not your cousins. This is important to note, and it's why I specifically said brothers and sisters, not cousins or anything else.

But, what on earth is it you imagine your story proves? Did those grandparents bequeath wealth to grandsons but not granddaughters? Them doing that, and grandparents doing that systematically across the nation in the current generation, would be required for white women to have less access to ancestral wealth than white men.

It doesn't make an iota of difference if your cousins got more or less than you, whether that's because there were more children in that family or your aunts and uncles made more money themselves, or whatever other reason except favouritism for boys in the current generation in terms of inheritance.

Show the evidence or withdraw the claim.

Your argument has been and still is invalid.

Honestly, I thought you understood before and you were simply trolling me with fake obliviousness. It seems you are actually oblivious.

"Show evidence or withdraw the claim"... Hmmm...

I think I recall a recent conversation where I asked as much, and you refused.

Of course, I add the caveat that your "evidence" actually supports your conclusion.

But here you are...

Jarhyn, you never answered my post asking about how your 'diversity plan' of equal representation of all groups could work.

You never acknowledged that you were wrong about what the law of large numbers entails and you certainly never withdrew the claim.

You said per capita, blacks and whites commit the same amount of crime, and when I asked for your sources, you made producing them conditional (and of course you would determine whether the conditions were met). You made a positive claim and then never produced any evidence.

I don't think I need lessons on furnishing evidence from you.

 

[Jarhyn]

"Show evidence or withdraw the claim"... Hmmm...

I think I recall a recent conversation where I asked as much, and you refused.

Of course, I add the caveat that your "evidence" actually supports your conclusion.

But here you are...

Jarhyn, you never answered my post asking about how your 'diversity plan' of equal representation of all groups could work.

You never acknowledged that you were wrong about what the law of large numbers entails and you certainly never withdrew the claim.

You said per capita, blacks and whites commit the same amount of crime, and when I asked for your sources, you made producing them conditional (and of course you would determine whether the conditions were met). You made a positive claim and then never produced any evidence.

I don't think I need lessons on furnishing evidence from you.

Two things here, "Tu Quoque" is still a fallacy, and your assertions that I'm wrong about the rule of large numbers are just that: bald assertions. Between group variation being lower than within-group variations means that any population can produce the same results, especially at the limited rates that universities are subjected to, and you have already admitted that you won't support the belief that the actual output of the university, the graduates, are inferior. Or do you also make that unsupported claim now?

You are claiming against the null hypothesis. Guess who has a burden of proof? And guess who has a responsibility to use good data to drive their beliefs?

So yeah, looks like you need some lessons.

 

[Metaphor]

Two things here, "Tu Quoque" is still a fallacy, and your assertions that I'm wrong about the rule of large numbers are just that: bald assertions.

No, it was more than an assertion. It was a fact. You did not understand what the law of large numbers meant when you made that post. It's evident from what you wrote in it. But you can either now admit you were wrong about the law of large numbers, or, as you appear to be doing here, double down in your wrongness.

Between group variation being lower than within-group variations means that any population can produce the same results,

No, that is not what it means.

especially at the limited rates that universities are subjected to, and you have already admitted that you won't support the belief that the actual output of the university, the graduates, are inferior.

Actually, I admitted no such thing. I asked you how you defined academia "functioning best", and you never responded. I suspect because it's something you've never thought about and didn't want to be called on it.

Or do you also make that unsupported claim now?

I never made a claim that diversity causes academia to 'function best'. You made that claim. I asked how you measured 'functioning best' and you never responded.

You are claiming against the null hypothesis.

Non. You made a claim that blacks and whites commit crimes at the same rate per capita, and that you had the sources to evidence such a claim. You did not produce any such sources.

Guess who has a burden of proof?

The person who made the positive claim - you.

And guess who has a responsibility to use good data to drive their beliefs?

We all have that responsibility.

 

[laughing dog]

Has this happened in the current generation? Where is your evidence?

Where is the evidence that white women inherit less than white men in the current generation?

I pointed out the logical flaws in your argument. I made no claim about "x", just that it was possible that if x >50% that your argument was invalid. For some bizarre reason, you think empirical evidence is required to support a logical argument. Which I find fascinating, since you have provided no empirical evidence to support your argument.

You only share the exact same ancestors with your siblings, not your cousins....

Family extends beyond siblings, so no.

This is important to note, and it's why I specifically said brothers and sisters, not cousins or anything else.

It is important to note that you tend to unnecessary restrictions in the vain hope of making your arguments valid. After all, it means your argument only has a hope of validity over two generations.

For some reason, you are now fixated on evidence. As you may recall, I am the one who first pointed out that this is an empirical question - not you. And I also wrote that I don't know and that I was interested in the empirical evidence. I even pointed out that your position is a reasonable guess. I think Toni's claim is also a reasonable guess. I simply pointed out that your snipe and arguments have no logical nor empirical basis (because you have not produced one iota of empirical evidence).

Now before you bring up your "whataboutism" for Toni, she did not produce an uncalled for snipe in her post - you did.

There is nothing wrong with not having evidence to support one's opinion or argument or belief. You agreed your position is an empirical question whether Toni's claim or your claim is valid.

That means you need to provide empirical evidence to support your claim of fact/disprove Toni's or Toni needs to provide empirical evidence to support her claim of fact/disprove your claim of fact. Without empirical support, both claims are simply opinions about reality.

Given the complex nature of the required empirical evidence, I sincerely doubt anyone has convincing empirical evidence to support their opinion on that matter. Sometimes life is like that. But the lack of empirical evidence does not mean one snipes about "incoherency" or "trolling" or "obliviousness".

So, instead of wasting your time and effort with your empirical evidence-free and logically flawed arguments, why not acknowledge the that no one has evidence to support their opinion and people can continue to have their beliefs?

 

[Metaphor]

I pointed out the logical flaws in your argument. I made no claim about "x", just that it was possible that if x >50% that your argument was invalid.

My argument does not have logical flaws. It is sound. The history of ancestral wealth inheritance between men and women is entirely irrelevant to whether women in the current generation enjoy that wealth equally with men.

You act as if I had not considered. indeed, pointed out, what conditions were necessary for Toni's assertion to be true. One of those conditions was that men inherited more than women in the current generation.

For some bizarre reason, you think empirical evidence is required to support a logical argument.

Which I find fascinating, since you have provided no empirical evidence to support your argument.

I need no empirical evidence to point out the incoherence of Toni's claim. Its incoherence is the evidence, as you say.

It is important to note that you tend to unnecessary restrictions in the vain hope of making your arguments valid. After all, it means your argument only has a hope of validity over two generations.

No. You don't understand the argument at all. It doesn't matter if your cousins inherited more or less than you, even though you share one set of grandparents. It doesn't matter if every women in prior generations inherited absolutely nothing.

For some reason, you are now fixated on evidence. As you may recall, I am the one who first pointed out that this is an empirical question - not you.

The logical incoherence of Toni's claim--implied by her paragraph numbered 2, is not an empirical question. It's logically incoherent. She implied men had access to wealth that women did not, and the reason she gave was ancestral wealth accumulation alone.

And I also wrote that I don't know and that I was interested in the empirical evidence. I even pointed out that your position is a reasonable guess. I think Toni's claim is also a reasonable guess. I simply pointed out that your snipe and arguments have no logical nor empirical basis (because you have not produced one iota of empirical evidence).

Toni's argument was incoherent. But there's a different way Toni's assertion could nevertheless be true. I asked for that evidence.

Now before you bring up your "whataboutism" for Toni, she did not produce an uncalled for snipe in her post - you did.

I said her argument was incoherent. That's not a snipe.

There is nothing wrong with not having evidence to support one's opinion or argument or belief. You agreed your position is an empirical question whether Toni's claim or your claim is valid.

It's an empirical question whether white men and white women inherit differently in the current generation. It is not an empirical question that white men and white women have different ancestors that would cause white women today to have less access to ancestral wealth.

That means you need to provide empirical evidence to support your claim of fact/disprove Toni's or Toni needs to provide empirical evidence to support her claim of fact/disprove your claim of fact. Without empirical support, both claims are simply opinions about reality.

I didn't make a claim about whether men and women inherit different amounts of wealth. Toni made the positive claim, not me.

Given the complex nature of the required empirical evidence, I sincerely doubt anyone has convincing empirical evidence to support their opinion on that matter. Sometimes life is like that. But the lack of empirical evidence does not mean one snipes about "incoherency" or "trolling" or "obliviousness".

Her argument, with its unstated premises, was incoherent. That is not a snipe.

So, instead of wasting your time and effort with your empirical evidence-free and logically flawed arguments, why not acknowledge the that no one has evidence to support their opinion and people can continue to have their beliefs?

I didn't make a positive claim that men and women inherited differently. Toni made that claim.

I also made a claim that brothers and sisters have the same ancestors as each other, and that sexed discrimination in inheritance would make no sexed difference to who has access to that wealth in the current generation. That claim is true.

 

[Metaphor]

No offense, but who cares if that claim is true if by your own admission it's factually irrelevant?

Toni brought up the irrelevancy, not me. It doesn't matter what happened to women before the current generation, in terms of the current generation's access to wealth.

Toni was the one quoting rules about married women's property from the 19th century as if they had any bearing.

We're not trying to grade homework assignments on proofs. Spending multiple pages complaining about a missing assumption when you concede the underlying point seems like... well sniping.

Concede what underlying point? Toni made a claim that white men have access to ancestral wealth that white women don't. When I asked for evidence, she produced 'evidence' that does not show what she claims, but further betrays her own lack of understanding as to why her original argument was incoherent.

And it's also not addressing the fact that wealth provides benefits beyond being bequeathed.

Whoever imagined that it didn't? In fact, I specifically mentioned that parental investment in human capital of their children while parents are still alive could be sexed, but you would need to show evidence for that if that's the claim you were making.

My greatest regret isn't having spent the time reading it, but that I can't go back and warn anyone further up the thread.

It beggars belief that laughing dog and yourself accuse me of making a 'snipe'. What on earth would you call this?

 

[laughing dog]

I said her argument was incoherent. That's not a snipe.

It is more coherent than any of your arguments to date. Your obsession with your straw man of "that white men and white women have different ancestors that would cause white women today to have less access to ancestral wealth." is driving your increasingly incoherent responses.

 

[Metaphor]

I said her argument was incoherent. That's not a snipe.

It is more coherent than any of your arguments to date. Your obsession with your straw man of "that white men and white women have different ancestors that would cause white women today to have less access to ancestral wealth." is driving your increasingly incoherent responses.

It isn't a straw man. It was a faulty, hidden assumption implied by her assertion.

2. It is easier for (in general)/more likely for a white male person to qualify for a business loan because they are more likely to have some wealth already because for hundreds of years, their family was able to acquire and maintain wealth to a much greater extent than women have been able to

Toni's argument was incoherent. I can't explain again how it is incoherent any more than I have--I've done it half a dozen times already.

It is impossible for white men to have families with more ancestral wealth compared to white women. Definitionally impossible. Logically impossible. Literally impossible.

Any qualifications that Toni wants to make (e.g. that the current generation of men inherit more and/or have more wealth transferred to them in terms of human capital investment during their parents' lifetime) is something Toni needs to provide evidence for.

And I'm done replying to you about this.

 

[laughing dog]

It isn't a straw man. It was a faulty, hidden assumption implied by her assertion.

No, it is your faulty inference.

And I'm done replying to you about this.

Good, the remainder of the thread will be improved by the absence of your incoherent straw men in this derail.