Fallacies aren’t exclusive to debates. They’re more like brainfarts; when something goes wrong with your reasoning, there’s a fallacy. It doesn’t matter if you’re debating or even doing shit on your own.
And, although not in this case*, fallacies are a big deal. One of the big ways we (human beings) cause each other harm is by not thinking things properly.
*as you said OP is joking. A lot of jokes rely on fallacies, and that’s fine — it’s like you relax your reasoning for amusement. OP is also taunting bigots in 4chan, it’s kind of fun to see them screeching.
It’s basically two fallacies of composition together. I think Kairos is saying it applies in this case because of the greentext.
(Another name for the same fallacy is the “Muhammad Chang” fallacy. Basically: if the most common name is Muhammad, and the most common surname is Chang, then the most common full name should be Muhammad Chang.)
Most likely, but it isn’t the most common full name in the world. Because typically people with one don’t have the other.
(Plus family names aren’t even obligatory in Indonesia, and Muhammad is so common among Muslims around the world that they typically have also a second personal name — like “Muhammad Osman”.)
A: fetishising trans women +> treating trans women as women
B: refusing trans women rights +> not treating trans women as women
Or something like this. She’s implying a lot of stuff into the post.
Note the “core” of the text is simply taunting that shithole full of bigots, and boils down to “your claims that nobody treats me like a woman are wrong, because chasers exist”.
[EDIT: to be clear, I’m trying to interpret what she said; not condoning or condemning her, I’m in no position to do either. And what comes below is more of a comment on society being fucked up.]
It’s like a fucking lasagna made of shit, you remove a layer of shit, then there’s another layer of shit below, recursively. 4chan’s “hurr durr you never be a woman”, society refusing human rights (such as, you know… trans rights?), fetishisation (a type of objectivisation)…
Goomba fallacy
Not everything is a organised debate fallacy. Sometimes a joke is a joke.
Fallacies aren’t exclusive to debates. They’re more like brainfarts; when something goes wrong with your reasoning, there’s a fallacy. It doesn’t matter if you’re debating or even doing shit on your own.
And, although not in this case*, fallacies are a big deal. One of the big ways we (human beings) cause each other harm is by not thinking things properly.
*as you said OP is joking. A lot of jokes rely on fallacies, and that’s fine — it’s like you relax your reasoning for amusement. OP is also taunting bigots in 4chan, it’s kind of fun to see them screeching.
what?
Here’s the goomba fallacy in a nutshell:
It’s basically two fallacies of composition together. I think Kairos is saying it applies in this case because of the greentext.
(Another name for the same fallacy is the “Muhammad Chang” fallacy. Basically: if the most common name is Muhammad, and the most common surname is Chang, then the most common full name should be Muhammad Chang.)
I willing to bet there are people named like this in indonesia and west china (uyghur province)
Most likely, but it isn’t the most common full name in the world. Because typically people with one don’t have the other.
(Plus family names aren’t even obligatory in Indonesia, and Muhammad is so common among Muslims around the world that they typically have also a second personal name — like “Muhammad Osman”.)
that’s fair. At first glance Muhammad Chang sounds impossible as the two cultures are quite separate, but I tried to think of overlaps.
What would A and B be in this case?
It’s all implied, but:
A: fetishising trans women +> treating trans women as women
B: refusing trans women rights +> not treating trans women as women
Or something like this. She’s implying a lot of stuff into the post.
Note the “core” of the text is simply taunting that shithole full of bigots, and boils down to “your claims that nobody treats me like a woman are wrong, because chasers exist”.
[EDIT: to be clear, I’m trying to interpret what she said; not condoning or condemning her, I’m in no position to do either. And what comes below is more of a comment on society being fucked up.]
It’s like a fucking lasagna made of shit, you remove a layer of shit, then there’s another layer of shit below, recursively. 4chan’s “hurr durr you never be a woman”, society refusing human rights (such as, you know… trans rights?), fetishisation (a type of objectivisation)…
i’m reading it more like refusing trans women rights is treating them like women have historically been treated.
That’s what I’m reading too, a cynical joke.
This, too. And there’s a third way to read it:
Two more layers to the shit lasagna, I guess…
[Note: I’m not trans. So, please, if anyone who’s trans find something I said is wrong, or bullshit, please do point it out.]
What, porn based on taking titty pills? Revolutionary. Next you’ll tell me people will take dick pills for porn.
Also, I think what you said is right.