- Joined
- Mar 22, 2019
I thought Philosophy's whole (ideal) thing is that they construct well-reasoned, logical arguments.
Rhys obviously believes that TWAW. Furthermore, his life would see material benefit if this were generally accepted. It is in his ethical and personal interest to convince others. So what argument does he pull out?
"If you believe A, then you must also believe B." While B is repeatedly shown to be the least convincing outcome of A with the least broad acceptance, even among those who are generally open to TWAW.
With this argument structure, there are only two options he has presented to his audience: let trans women into women's sports with scant or no restrictions... or abandon any position that trans women are women. He has allowed them no middle ground. No way to step back and consider things and then end up moving in his direction. Because he's never once considered that people could, when presented with this structure, simply go "Well... I guess I don't believe A, then."
Narcs gonna narc.
Rhys obviously believes that TWAW. Furthermore, his life would see material benefit if this were generally accepted. It is in his ethical and personal interest to convince others. So what argument does he pull out?
"If you believe A, then you must also believe B." While B is repeatedly shown to be the least convincing outcome of A with the least broad acceptance, even among those who are generally open to TWAW.
With this argument structure, there are only two options he has presented to his audience: let trans women into women's sports with scant or no restrictions... or abandon any position that trans women are women. He has allowed them no middle ground. No way to step back and consider things and then end up moving in his direction. Because he's never once considered that people could, when presented with this structure, simply go "Well... I guess I don't believe A, then."
Narcs gonna narc.