[Noisebridge-discuss] Fwd: Girls Hack

[Brink Of Complexity]

And that argument conflates logos with ethos, so where are we going with
this?

-brink

On Oct 30, 2013 3:59 PM, "LinkReincarnate" <linkreincarnate at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: LinkReincarnate <linkreincarnate at gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 3:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] Girls Hack
> To: Brink Of Complexity <brink.0x3f at gmail.com>
>
>
> You seem to be conflating your edge case with the general case using no
evidence other than your own experience.  I fail to see an absolutist claim
in the statement "We didn't have these sorts of opportunities for women
when I was growing up." Did she say "No women of my generation had these
opportunities?" or "All women were discouraged from tech fields?" No, it
was a simple statement about her experiences growing up that you falsely
labeled an absolutist statement. The fact that you take that statement as a
personal affront and an attack on women (by a woman no less) speaks volumes
about your interpretation of her words but nothing about her intention.
>
> It's easy to "defeat" any argument by saying an edge case disproves an
entire premise but that doesn't stand up to intellectual rigor does it? If
I am caught burning down a building and you say "Burning down buildings is
wrong" I could refute that by saying "But if burning down that building
freed a bunch of people trapped in the basement it would not be wrong
therefore because I defeated your generalist statement I am not in the
wrong for burning down this building (which has no trapped people).
> Yup edge cases exist.  But they are not the general case that's why we
differentiate them from the general case by calling them edge cases.  You
personally identified your case as the edge case and misidentified Liz's
statement as an absolutist statement.   This is where your argument fails.
 It wasn't an absolutist statement. That was your interpretation.  Even if
it was you self-identifying yourself as an edge case negates your argument
because she wasn't talking about you.
>
> Your logic is weak your argument fails.
>
>
>
> The worst part of all of this is if you hadn't jumped down someone's
throat with pedantry and semantics you could have been friends and worked
collaboratively.  All because of a dumb misinterpretation of someone's
intent. (IE Your belief that she was making a blanket statement about all
women instead of relating a personal story.)
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Brink Of Complexity <brink.0x3f at gmail.com>
wrote:
>>
>> You seem to have logically conflated her absolutist statement, with my
single data point that destroys the truth of the absolute, even if it is an
outlier experience. Outliers are REAL. That is the point.
>>
>> It doesn't require projection, it's just logic.
>>
>> Also, please learn the difference between assumptions, hypotheses,
predictions, and conditional statements. It will help immensely in
processing information effectively.
>>
>> -brink
>>
>> *sorry about the duplicate to your personal address, my phone doesn't
"reply all" by default, and I don't plan to change that.
>>
>> On Oct 30, 2013 2:08 PM, "LinkReincarnate" <linkreincarnate at gmail.com>
wrote:
>> >
>> > Project much Brink?
>> >
>> > YOUR EXPERIENCES ARE NOT INDICATIVE OF EVERYONE"S EXPERIENCES.
>> > Just because you had opportunities to explore those interests does not
mean everyone  did. The fact that other  girls did not have the opportunity
that you did does not diminish your standing as a woman in a STEM field or
discourage women from moving into said field now.  What you seem to be
arguing though is that women never were discriminated against in the first
place (using the fact that you yourself persued those interests) and that
women who bemoan not having the opportunities that you have are just lazy
or stupid or both.
>> > I've said this before and I'll continue saying it until it makes a
dent in the collective consciousness.
>> > YOU (and everyone) SUCK AT PREDICTING PEOPLE"S MOTIVATIONS AND
UNDERLYING THOUGHT PROCESSES SO STOP ACTING ON THOSE PREDICTIONS.
>> > I've seen a lot of people who should be allies destroying Noisebridge
through misinterpreting each others motivations.   If you are interpreting
someone's thought process or motivation it's a safe bet to assume you are
already wrong.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > www.linkreincarnate.com
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> > https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> www.linkreincarnate.com
>
>
>
> --
> www.linkreincarnate.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20131030/06495a86/attachment-0001.html>