10-10-2016, 02:18 PM
(10-10-2016, 01:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The exact same way that talking shit on a bus is sexual harassment. We don't know if Trump would consent to sex with himself, so we must assume he would not. Furthermore, we do not fully know Trump's internal feelings, he may struggle with his identity and/or multiple personalities. Tell the man to harm himself could cause severe internal conflict and lead to self-mutilation. The fact that you and others ignore this is troubling.
Have I ever seen anyone rape themselves? Nope. Have I ever seen Trump gab anyone in the genitals? Nope
So I just take both at face value: Dudes talking shit, others will make much more out of it according to their bias.
We don't know anybodies internal feelings the only thing we can do to clue in on them is to take stock in their words and actions. Saying we don't know anybodies internal feelings so we don't have to credit what they say or do is a never ending loop were nobody is held accountable.
Paint a scenario where someone masturbates and it can be conceived as rape then maybe this can go full circle and you can prove your original point that telling someone to F themselves is advocating rape otherwise this is all bogus.
Apparently talking shit means being sexist and derogatory towards woman whether it's on a bus or whether you are watching the Olympics fantasizing about cheating on your spouse. It's all cool it's just locker room talk man.
Quote:False equivalence
A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result. False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors. The pattern of the fallacy is often as such: "If A is the set of c and d, and B is the set of d and e, then since they both contain d, A and B are equal". d is not required to exist in both sets; only a passing similarity is required to cause this fallacy to be able to be used.
