Name the fallacy…how am I to do that? You won’t pay for me to take Philosophy 101!!
You don’t need to take a course to know something about logic. The irony of college-educated people utilizing logical fallacies to defend the usefulness/benefit/etc of college education is quite apparent.
I tell you what, “Dad”, I’m getting really sick of your patronizing and pedantic “name your fallacy” non-answers to my responses.
They are “patronizing” only insofar as the fact that you aren’t able or willing to identify the fallacies that you’ve used. I’ll give you a hint: most of the fallacies you use are ‘fallacies of relevance.’ How can I respond to fallacious arguments? Why spend time on it?
I use quotes around “points” because I don’t think too much of what you are saying, to be blunt.
Yes, it is clear that you disagree.
You are making excuses for why my B-average brother is going to get his tuition paid for while his more-capable and harder-working sister has to go it alone.
I’m not, and you know it. I haven’t stated that that should be the case, and you know it (and if you somehow don’t, you have issues with reading comprehension). You’ve tried to suck me into your own pet example more than once - why are continuing? Why are you so obsessed with pushing me into a position that I’ve never stated that I oppose or support?
To h&%$ with your “points,” and I think you know what you can do with your fallacies, too.
They aren’t my fallacies. If anything, they are yours (regardless of whether you recognize them or not).
Don’t act as if higher education for every son has been some kind of birthright through the ages.
I haven’t. (I’d be interested in seeing your basis for making your above statement…)
You seem to forget that I, the woman, the daughter, the student, do not have to convince you of the value of giving me an education that I believe is in keeping with my aptitude and my economic prospects.
Okay. You seem to think that I’ve said otherwise, no?
You have to convince me why I shouldn’t pursue it, with or without your help.
… Then again, perhaps you’ve just misread what I’ve written. No, it’s almost as if you’re responding to something else (not what I’ve written).
If you don’t want to pay for it, well, it is your money and I can’t force you to do it. If you send my less-capable brothers to college, though, and withhold the same support from me, do not expect that I will be all that impressed with your “reasoning”. I’m not buying it, and most women in my position won’t. If you do not have a college-age daughter yet, well, you’ve been warned.
Again, the pet example (and a very narrow one at that). If you are suggesting that I’m actually saying those things (e.g. not the generic “you”), then you are actively and deliberately misrepresenting what I’ve said.
Does it scare you that much to hear a view opposite of yours? Now that is offensive. No argument, no comeback?
Seemingly.
I think you misunderstood me, I meant to write up a reply to the article here for the sake of furthering the current discussion.
My arguments in that thread backed up some of the points in the article which you are interested in writing a reply to. It would likely be a good idea to see further evidence before writing in opposition, no?
I have now twice started writing up a long response, going through the points in the article one by one, but finally realized that honestly, what all of the arguments boil down to is the idea that women going to college will lead to a family structure with two working parents and that since said structure is to be avoided at all costs women should not go to college.
Would you agree that this is a fair summary of the arguments?
That seems like a fair summary.
My response to this guy, is the same as the last time this came up:
If being married, having a career requiring advanced education and being a good Catholic are oh-so-incompatible, why oh why did we canonize a working mother as a Saint?
Heck, we’ve canonized female heads of state! With children! This sort of thinking betrays a lack of knowledge of Church history, and seems to have inhaled influences from our Protestant brothers, who are, naturally, misguided persons.
Are you familiar with the “nihil obstat”?
Be careful, he’ll accuse you of a strawman and then refuse to explain the ways in which you have allegedly misrepresented the argument.
Well, let’s see the benefits of a college education. Let’s see you identify the plainly visible fallacies that you used in your comments. (Try to resist the cognitive biases opposing such a goal.)
Did you not read my reply to you? Why not respond to my points there? Is it easier to say the above to deflect from having to respond to those points? Do I have to demonstrate the value of a college education by explaining basic logic to a graduate?
