Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Because at its core your argument is "group of people X feels threatened by group of people Y, but group Y should listen and not feel attacked if someone from group X tells them group Y is dangerous". Replacing group X and Y by any group of people should give you an idea of why this is a bad argument. In other words I'm just applying analogical reasoning to your argument to showcase that in an analogous situation the same argument would be considered aggressive.
Granted, it's not always possible to substitute groups, but if your counterargument is that the substitutions are not analogous you need to present evidence of why that is the case. In other words, why do you think this argument applies to women who are afraid of men but not to whites that are afraid of blacks.
Look, I'm not the person you replied to, let's start with that. Second, no, I don't have to justify countering that absurd sophism that you did. It's on you to make sense in the first place
Ok,sorry, didn't see it was someone different, in any case at its core his argument was that.
You're making a claim that those two are different, it's impossible to prove a negative so I can't prove that they're not different because even if I pointed to 99 metrics that made it the same that doesn't mean that there doesn't exist a metric by which they're different.
I've explained my reasoning, they're analogous groups, so if you can point to a relevant metric by which they're different then my argument would be invalid. Let me explain, one could argue that it's different because women are mostly attacked by men, but statistically speaking whites are also attacked more by blacks, and again one can easily see that that's a bad argument to claim blacks are criminals, therefore the other form of it is a bad argument to claim men are rapist. Any meaningful metric I can think of has the same problem, i.e it also applies to the white/black version.
And no, you're not forced to reply, but that does sound like confirmation that you couldn't think of any meaningful metric by which my analogy fails.
How is it any different? It's discrimination. Not cool, no matter which group is doing it to which other group.