Part of the thing here, & it's a point feminists make, generally, is to do with who is doing the doing. It's men waging war, men doing the killing. Of course, you can find exceptions - Eleanor of Aquitaine was pretty feisty - but overwhelmingly men were active, women passive.
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
Why can't you make the latter claim?
Because you can't move from what is statistically true of a distribution (e.g., 60% of men are bad) to a claim that there's a 60% chance any particular man is bad. In fact, it's hard to make sense of a probability statement about a particular individual (he's either bad or not).
-
-
Probability claims (e.g., most men are bad) mean something like: If you randomly draw 100 men from the distribution of all men, then most of them will be bad. If you happen to draw Jesus, then it doesn't follow there's a good chance that he's bad (he either is bad or he isn't).
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Why not? If your only data point on this individual is that he's a man, why can't you do this? If 99% of snakes are venomous, is it not reasonable to assume any given snake you encounter is venomous, or at least likely enough to be venomous that caution is advised?
-
The snake you come across either is venomous or it isn't - probability doesn't come into it. What does it mean to say of a snake that isn't venomous that there's a 90% chance it's venomous?
-
The question of how you'd be wise to behave has to do with the characteristics of the distribution of all snakes, not the particular snake you come across. If you don't know anything about the particular snake, then the characteristics of the distribution is all you've got.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.