From: zeborah@gmail.com   
      
   David Friedman  wrote:   
      
   > In article <1im52qz.1ie8ctd11jlthzN%zeborah@gmail.com>,   
   >  zeborah@gmail.com (Zeborah) wrote:   
   >   
   > > David Friedman  wrote:   
   > >   
   > > > In article <1im4p7i.pr4bpq89vw1mN%zeborah@gmail.com>,   
   > > >  zeborah@gmail.com (Zeborah) wrote:   
   > > >   
   > > > > Do you not see how:   
   > > > >   
   > > > > "Western society is a part of pan-Eurasian society"   
   > > > >   
   > > > > is not equivalent to:   
   > > > >   
   > > > > "Western society includes [various Asian countries]"?   
   > > >   
   > > > The context was the question of whether Western society was unusually   
   > > > oppressive towards women. In order for her response to be relevant to   
   > > > that, she has to be claiming--and I think pretty clearly was   
   > > > claiming--that China et. al. aren't counterexamples because they are   
   > > > part of the same society. Whether you call it "Western society" or   
   > > > "pan-Eurasian society" is irrelevant to the argument.   
   > >   
   > > But it is not irrelevant to the fact that you scolded her that, 'It's   
   > > not anyone's understanding of "Western Civilization" that it includes   
   > > Japan, Mongolia, and Ceylon, and always has. Yet that is what you are   
   > > arguing.'   
   >   
   > I haven't checked back over the thread, but I'm pretty sure that either   
   > she had used the term "Western civilization" or something close, or I   
   > had used it without her disagreeing, earlier. So it was Western   
   > civilization that she was claiming was particularly sexist. Since she   
   > was proposing to include all, or at least most, of Eurasia in what she   
   > considered especially sexist, as a way of answering my point that   
   > various asian societies had been much more sexist than modern Western   
   > civilization, she was implicitly including all of that in Western   
   > society, civilization or whatever. It was what her argument required.   
      
   "Is sexist" (which is more or less kind of my initial claim) doesn't   
   mean "is particularly sexist" doesn't mean "is more sexist than   
   everywhere else in the world".   
      
   And Suzanne has, in the parts of the thread I've checked, been pretty   
   consistent in arguing not that Eurasian society is a part of Western   
   society, but that it is *related to* Western society in ways which make   
   it not a random sample of the world's societies.   
      
   > > What you call it is very relevant to that.  And the fact is that she has   
   > > *not* argued that Japan, Mongolia, and Ceylon are part of Western   
   > > civilisation; she has only argued that they are part of a pan-Eurasian   
   > > society.  Which is not nearly so obviously ridiculous.   
   >   
   > I note that you carefully avoid making any comment on the substantive   
   > point,   
      
   Yes.  Because I don't care about the substantive point; I care that the   
   particular arguments you are making fail at logic.   
      
   David, I've always hated arguing with you.  It was frustrating back when   
   you were a gifted rhetorician who could, with logic and conviction, tie   
   your opponent up in verbal knots.  But over the last few months, your   
   arguments are increasingly incoherent and your chain of logic is   
   increasingly full of confusing gaps.  You're still tying knots in the   
   rope but your opponent is several yards away from where you're flailing   
   about with it; and that's not only frustrating, it's just a waste of my   
   time.   
      
   Zeborah   
   --   
   Gravity is no joke.   
   http://www.geocities.com/zeborahnz/   
   rasfc FAQ:  http://www.lshelby.com/rasfcFAQ.html   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)