[Noisebridge-discuss] Fwd: Girls Hack

[LinkReincarnate]

How am I appealing to authority there ?  I am genuinely curious as to how
you came to the conclusion that I was positioning myself as the authority
from what I wrote.


On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Brink Of Complexity
<brink.0x3f at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
> >
>



-- 
www.linkreincarnate.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20131030/ce99e84a/attachment-0001.html>