Skip to main content

View Diary: Some statistics on pie (163 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  One more try (4.00)
    First - as some of the posts below point out - the same stat could be applied to men and children.  And, as the point of the diary was to discuss discrimination of women, the state therefore adds nothing to the discussion.

    In any case, to draw the conclusion that just because a certain group is disproportionately impacted by something it is therefore being singled out for persecution or discrimination is logically flawed.  That is why your scenario of a kindergarden bomber is not on point.  In that scenario the bomber intentionally targeted a location that he/she presumably knew to have a disproportionate number of children.  Therefore the children were singled out for persecution.

    You haven't presented any evidence that countries in which people are displaced are intentionally targeted because they have a disproportionate number of women and children.  Therefore it cannot logically follow that their displacement is a result of gender discrimination, etc.

    •  By the way (none)
      None of this means that I don't agree with the ultimate point regarding discrimnation that women face.  It just means that I appreciate logical arguments.
      •  Let's see... (none)
        I don't see any comment, mine, Jerome's or anyone else's, that claims or implies that someone is causing conditions that produce refugees with the intent to discriminate against women. Instead, the point, as I understand it, is that (a) it's a fact that such conditions have a disparate impact on women and children, (b) that fact should be of special concern given that women and children are generally the least able to survive such conditions, and (c) the fact that the fact of disparate impact is neither generally known nor a cause for special efforts to mitigate such conditions is prima facie evidence that the welfare of women and children, as a group, is not given particular concern.

        The poster who called this a "junk stat" certainly has the right to fairly disagree with these implicit assertions, and an argument addressing (b) and (c) above would have been fair comment.  But the label "junk stat" is (a) not an argument, (b) insultingly dismissive, and (c) a logical inanity for the reasons I've posted elsewhere.  

        "When the intellectual history of this era is finally written, it will scarcely be believable." -- Noam Chomsky

        by scorponic on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 07:51:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site