= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
army1987 comments on Polling Thread - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (118)
One thing I've noticed is that, whereas zero-article plurals in English are usually taken to only refer to central elements of a category (“ducks lay eggs” even though male ones don't) in descriptive statements, they often aren't in normative statements (say “ducks aren't allowed here”). Therefore, claims like “women are X; therefore, women shouldn't be allowed to do Y”, insofar as “women are X” would normally be taken to refer to typical women and “women shouldn't be allowed to do Y” would normally be taken to refer to all women, sound a lot like fallacies of equivocation to me.
Or maybe the claimers do not believe that every rare exception warrants a deontological obligation to create an entire legal/social/institutional framework to acommodate it, regardless of consequences such as horrible inefficiency, toxic social pathologies, or the abandonment of vitally important Schelling fences (I am reminded of a comment on Steve Sailer's blog: "The military is too male. I don't have a joke, I'm just really in awe of that phrase. I'm thinking about the length of a journey that a culture must undertake in order for that to stop sounding crazy.")
If that's their argument, I'd rather they stated that explicitly, rather than relying on the ambiguity of generic plurals.
(And in certain cases I can't see what's wrong with just using the same legal/social/institutional framework that already exists for men. “After all, we are a university, not a bath house.”)