There is no such thing as a "misogynist" society

Dec 2011
1,911
#31
False Premise = False Premise

Furthermore, OP's syllogism, as stated:



I have quoted the syllogism. A premise supports a syllogism, the entirety of this thread proceeds from a false conflation of premise with syllogism. OP's premises, as stated are supposed to be:

"proving that a simple syllogism can be used to demonstrate..."

Not only do P1 through P4 fail to support P0, which is in fact:

"...such a thing as a misogynist society has not, and never has, existed"

They fail to support the argument that:

"A simple syllogism can be used to demonstrate..."

OP does, however, put forth an excellent example of rhetoric in that everyone looked right at the pink elephant while the white rabbit emptied their metaphorical bank accounts...
The validity of a syllogism is not related to its truth value.

There are multiple sources on the internet to learn what a syllogism is.

The syllogism conclusion remains valid.
 
Likes: bboomer
Dec 2011
1,911
#32
I don't think we need anything else than the initial syllogism itself:



it's missing: "All women are not mothers". As I see it, that is breaking the logic chain to:



Plus, the "rupture" point between 1-3 and 4-5: 1 and 3 have an individual subject ("A misogynist ") while 4 and 5 have a colective subject ("society").

Nothing in the OP syllogism permits to say that "society" is the simple arithmetical sum of "individuals".
The conclusion requires elements from the premises, which are consistent or noncontradictory.

From my post #9 :

There are no internal consistence and the premises support the conclusion. (IOW, no fallacies or rule violations I have detected yet)

P3 mentions "society" and is consistent or does not contradict any P or any C.

I see nothing in your post that would invalidate the conclusions.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2011
1,911
#33
Not only do P1 through P4 fail to support P0, which is in fact:

"...such a thing as a misogynist society has not, and never has, existed"

They fail to support the argument that:

"A simple syllogism can be used to demonstrate..."
Incorrect.

A syllogism does not have to be supported.

Either the conclusion is valid or invalid...or...a premise can be challenged and shown to be false. A false premise can "refute" the argument but it does not make the conclusion invalid. Again, a syllogism is not concerned with truth values.

Your comments fail on both accounts.
 

civfanatic

Ad Honorem
Oct 2012
3,270
Des Moines, Iowa
#34
Equality means that under an "all else being equal" scenario, you treat the two equally. Your mother is NOT an "all else being equal" scenario. Your mother clothed you, protected you, fed you, and educated you (I hope). The entire point of equality, is that women should NOT have to cloth you, protect you, feed you and educate you in order to be treated as an equal. You treat men as equals even when they never met you in your life. Ergo women should be treated as equals by doing the exact same amount men have to do, which is nothing.
Your comment is irrelevant, because lack of hatred towards X does not imply that X needs to be treated equally with Y. For example, I do not believe that children should be treated as equals with adult men, but that does not imply that I hate children. Likewise, I believe that women are fundamentally unequal with men and should not have the same rights and obligations as men, but that does not imply that I hate women.

All great men throughout history, including Confucius, Hammurabi, Aristotle, and Cicero, agree with my views.
 
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
#35
Read back a bit and found my answer has already been covered;

A sound logical inference does not guarantee truth. Some really weird arguments can be made using syllogisms. Not a terribly reliable method of arriving at a truthful inference

Plus madonna /whore dichotomy common in some societies, such as Italian.

I also have problems using a simple dictionary definition to make sweeping generalisations , especially for something as complex as human emotions.
 
Feb 2011
6,148
#36
Your comment is irrelevant, because lack of hatred towards X does not imply that X needs to be treated equally with Y. For example, I do not believe that children should be treated as equals with adult men, but that does not imply that I hate children. Likewise, I believe that women are fundamentally unequal with men and should not have the same rights and obligations as men, but that does not imply that I hate women.

All great men throughout history, including Confucius, Hammurabi, Aristotle, and Cicero, agree with my views.
You are only using your definition that a misogynist must somehow "hate" EACH AND EVERY women in order to be a misogynist.

Here is the first definition of misogyny that popped up from google search:
a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women.

Other definitions by order that they popped up (excluding non-serious ones and wikipedia):
Vocabulary.com: A misogynist is a person who hates or doesn't trust women.
Dictionary.com: a person who hates, dislikes, mistrusts, or mistreats women.
Cambridge English Dictionary 1: a man who hates women or believes that men are much better than women
Cambridge English Dictionary 2: showing feelings of hating women or a belief that men are much better than women
Oxford Dictionaries: a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women.
Your Dictionary: Hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women

^Notice the abundant use of the word "or". Not the word "and", but the word "or".


I see you also ignored the rest of what I posted. I have shown that Hitler didn't hate one particular Jew, in fact he got out of his way to protect that Jew and his family. Are you saying Hitler don't hate Jews then?

Here was the rest of what I posted:

This is Eduard Bloch:



He was Adolf Hitler's personal doctor. He was also Jewish. The two had a very good relationship. Adolt Hitler protected Eduard and his family from his Gestapo. This was not a protection he extended to every Jew.

Ever heard the defense: "I'm not racist, I have a token black friend"
 
Last edited:
Likes: bboomer

civfanatic

Ad Honorem
Oct 2012
3,270
Des Moines, Iowa
#37
I have quoted the syllogism. A premise supports a syllogism, the entirety of this thread proceeds from a false conflation of premise with syllogism. OP's premises, as stated are supposed to be:

"proving that a simple syllogism can be used to demonstrate..."

Not only do P1 through P4 fail to support P0, which is in fact:

"...such a thing as a misogynist society has not, and never has, existed"

They fail to support the argument that:

"A simple syllogism can be used to demonstrate..."
ts...
My actual argument consists only of the five sentences that I clearly indicated in the OP. That argument is perfectly valid, meaning that it is impossible for my conclusion to be false if my premises are true. Thus, in order to refute my argument, you would need to show that my premises are false. It is possible for an argument to be valid and unsound at the same time, and you need to demonstrate the latter to show that my conclusion is false.

You attacked two of my premises as follows:

1. First, you attacked Sentence 1 of my argument by claiming that the given definition was "incomplete" and that the term "misogyny" also encompasses "contempt for and prejudice against women." I would like to point out that the term "misogyny" has a clear and unambiguous etymological root in Greek misos, which means "hatred." Thus, the term "misogyny" clearly and unambiguously means "hatred of women" (the suffix -gyny is from Greek gyné, which indicates the female sex). As I pointed out in my response to Tammuz, I do not see any meaningful semantic distinction between "hatred" and "contempt" in this context, as both terms indicate antipathy. The term "prejudice" also indicates antipathy, unless it is used in the general sense of "any preconceived judgment or opinion" (see Definition 2a from Merriam-Webster). However, I can hold a preconceived judgment or opinion about some group without hating or having feelings of antipathy towards that group, so the term "prejudice" in this general sense is not synonymous with misos.

2. Second, you attacked Sentence 4 of my argument by simply claiming that the given sentence ("In every society that has ever existed, most people do not hate their mothers, but love them.") is an "unfounded assumption." I find it quite strange that you find this assumption to be "unfounded," given the very strong biological imperatives that underlie mother-child bonding (which is probably far stronger than any other human bond), and the fact that even in highly patriarchal Islamic countries like Egypt, there is almost universal love and appreciation for one's mother (I have quoted from renowned anthropologist Winifred Blackman, who spent many years in Egypt studying the life and customs of the Egyptian peasants). Do you believe that the assumption "most men throughout history hold feelings of hatred/antipathy towards women" is more reasonable than the assumption "most men throughout history have loved their mothers"? On what basis do you believe this?
 
Likes: Cepheus

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
13,149
Europix
#38
If you believe in the standard feminist narrative of "misogyny" existing throughout history and dominating the culture of various societies, on what basis would you refute my argument?
One dosn't have to refute Your argument, as it is not one: You proposed a syllogism.

See:

...A syllogism does not have to be supported.

Either the conclusion is valid or invalid...or...a premise can be challenged and shown to be false. A false premise can "refute" the argument but it does not make the conclusion invalid. Again, a syllogism is not concerned with truth values.
...
It's simply intellectual gymnastics with no value for actual analysis of reality.
 

civfanatic

Ad Honorem
Oct 2012
3,270
Des Moines, Iowa
#39
One dosn't have to refute Your argument, as it is not one: You proposed a syllogism.
What? A syllogism is a form of argument. If a syllogism is valid, the conclusion must follow if the premises are true. However, an argument can be both valid and unsound at the same time. If you believe that my argument's conclusion is false (i.e. that my argument is unsound), then you must prove that at least one of my premises are false.

It would be better if people learned more about logic and proper argumentation, rather than wasting their time reading nonsense feminist theory and psychoanalysis (a pseudo-science).
 
Dec 2011
1,911
#40
The conclusion requires elements from the premises, which are consistent or noncontradictory.

From my post #9 :

There are no internal consistence and the premises support the conclusion. (IOW, no fallacies or rule violations I have detected yet)

P3 mentions "society" and is consistent or does not contradict any P or any C.

I see nothing in your post that would invalidate the conclusions.
should read inconsistencies
 

Similar History Discussions