I’m a feminist, but women are universally incapable of rational thought and shouldn’t vote
cannot be coherently asserted, but
I believe people in comas are universally incapable of rational thought and shouldn’t vote
can be coherently asserted, so it cannot be the belief that women are people that is generating the contradiction. Regardless of what else one might believe about feminism, I think this line of argument shows some it has both necessary moralised element and a necessary non-trivial positive element.
While I disagree with the grandparent’s conflation of the least extreme version of feminism with all feminism, I think you’re being a bit obtuse about her intended connotation. It would be more typical lesswrongian language to phrase it as “Feminism is the belief that women are agents [and should be treated as such]”.
I’m a feminist, and we should put all women in prison
cannot be coherently asserted, but
I believe murderers are agents who should be treated accordingly, and put in prison
can be coherently asserted, so it cannot be the idea that we should treat women as agents that is generating the contradiction. You also need some additional premises about women being agents with certain moral properties. Equally,
I’m a feminist, and women are all stupid
cannot be coherently asserted, but
I believe stupid people are agents who should be treated as such, and that they are all stupid
can be coherently asserted, so it cannot be the belief that women are agents and deserving of appropriate treatment that is generating the contradiction.
I don’t feel like getting into this debate right now, but I want to apologise for the tone and unwarranted brevity/sweepingness of my first comment. The comment I was responding to upset me and I responded more from upset than from thinking about the best way to make my point. I should have argued my point carefully and calmly or refrained from making it at all. I’m going to go with the latter in this thread, but I wanted to say sorry!
Much as I hate to reply,
is definitely false, because
cannot be coherently asserted, but
can be coherently asserted, so it cannot be the belief that women are people that is generating the contradiction. Regardless of what else one might believe about feminism, I think this line of argument shows some it has both necessary moralised element and a necessary non-trivial positive element.
While I disagree with the grandparent’s conflation of the least extreme version of feminism with all feminism, I think you’re being a bit obtuse about her intended connotation. It would be more typical lesswrongian language to phrase it as “Feminism is the belief that women are agents [and should be treated as such]”.
I think that’s still insufficient.
cannot be coherently asserted, but
can be coherently asserted, so it cannot be the idea that we should treat women as agents that is generating the contradiction. You also need some additional premises about women being agents with certain moral properties. Equally,
cannot be coherently asserted, but
can be coherently asserted, so it cannot be the belief that women are agents and deserving of appropriate treatment that is generating the contradiction.
I don’t feel like getting into this debate right now, but I want to apologise for the tone and unwarranted brevity/sweepingness of my first comment. The comment I was responding to upset me and I responded more from upset than from thinking about the best way to make my point. I should have argued my point carefully and calmly or refrained from making it at all. I’m going to go with the latter in this thread, but I wanted to say sorry!