Kerry S: Cue all the men explaining why the gender pay gap isn’t a thing
Going to Getugly: Kerry, care to provide some kind of rational explanation for why men replying is a problem for you?
Kerry S: Ok. I’ll bite. Men replying is not a problem, per se. It’s just that soooo many of them spout the same old line despite the longitudinal evidence proving otherwise. I didn’t answer you because clearly you are spoiling for a fight and it is clear to me that rational argument would be wasted. You have made up your mind.
Going to Getugly: We could go on with the battling snarky comments… but I’d rather attempt a genuine conversation. Let me do a quick review of what has occurred and get your response:
– The Age has posted an article.
– People have responded to the article by expressing their perspective in the comment section.
– You have started off this little thread… not by addressing anything raised in the article or responding to criticism or concerns raised by commentators… but by expressing generalised condescension towards anyone of a particular gender who may express disagreement with the article’s premise.
– Another commentator, Kelly, joined in on the generalised condescension towards people based solely on their gender and not their arguments:
Kelly : “I’m just here to laugh at their bitter tears and tantrums”
– You replied in agreement with her and complained about the number of people of that gender expressing their perspective here:
Kerry S: “Kelly Anne yup. Skimming across the replies. Nearly all men…”
I think you have to agree that what I have described above is completely accurate and factual.
Now, my understanding of credible adult-level reasoned discussion and debate has always been that attacking anything other than the argument of the other person reflects incompetent reasoning. It’s fallacious. It signals someone who has a fixed conclusion to which they are very attached and are determined to protect… but which they can’t rationally and objectively support or justify. That’s why they deflect to complaining about anything OTHER than the arguments… things like the gender, race or age of the person who doesn’t share their convictions. Other deflection tactics include things like declaring themselves too far above the level of the other person to deign to engage them in rational debate.
It seems clear that you don’t share that understanding of what qualifies as credible reasoned discussion and debate. I’m curious, on what basis do you justify rejecting these basic, well established and essentially universally acknowledged standards? And why would you believe that demonstrating your rejection of those standards is not open to valid criticism and doesn’t disqualify you as being regarded as an informed and serious thinker?
Guess what… Kerry S never responded. I wonder why?