467
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 May 2024
467 points (92.5% liked)
The Onion
3904 readers
532 users here now
The Onion
A place to share and discuss stories from The Onion, Clickhole, and other satire.
Great Satire Writing:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
whenever i've felt like saying "not all men", it's in response to blanket statements about all men... and then usually includes a concession that indeed, a lot of men do and it's a problem, but that framing things as "all men" is problematic as it doesn't allow for improvement...
i mean um.... haha, yeah all men are dumb!!
The answer to "not all men" is indeed "enough men".
The issue isn't that it's 100% of men that do a thing. It's that it's enough you have to plan for it to happen every time. Ah in that case you may as well just assume it's all and be pleasantly surprised if you're wrong.
the exact same argument is used to justify racism...
misandry is no better than misogyny
...sure, I guess? An argument can be repurposed to try and make a lot of different points. Here's the thing though...
A logical argument is considered valid if its conclusion follows necessarily from its premises, meaning that if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. However, an argument can be valid but not necessarily true (like the argument you're suggesting). This is because validity only concerns the form of the argument, not the truth of the premises or the conclusion.
Here are some examples of valid but not necessarily true arguments:
Modus ponens: If it's raining, then the streets will be wet. It is raining. Therefore, the streets will be wet. This argument is valid because it follows the form of a valid argument, but it may not be true if the streets are not wet for some other reason.
Modus tollens: If it is not raining, then the streets will not be wet. The streets are not wet. Therefore, it is not raining. This argument is valid because it follows the form of a valid argument, but it may not be true if the streets are not wet for some other reason.
Hypothetical syllogism: If it is raining, then the streets will be wet. If the streets are wet, then the roads are slippery. Therefore, if it is raining, then the roads are slippery. This argument is valid because it follows the form of a valid argument, but it may not be true if the roads are not slippery for some other reason.
In each of these examples, the argument is valid because it follows a valid logical form, but it may not be true because the premises or conclusion may not be true.
Now think about the "enough men" argument. It's not translatable to misogyny and racism because the context (the premises) is vastly different for people who don't identify as men, and for people who are not white, straight, or really any other centered group (these things vary a lot depending on the specific culture you're looking at and the intersectional dynamics that exist). Not enough women are violent towards men (though this does happen, and it is also bad) for men to have a realistic need to protect themselves in as many interactions.
Using the argument out of specific context, without true premises, nearly guarantees that the argument will no longer be true, while still being logically valid.