The debate "Let me debunk the PragerU video of your choosing" was started by
April 21, 2019, 1:39 am.
26 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 37 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Nemiroff posted 34 arguments to the agreers part.
JDAWG9693 posted 15 arguments, killer posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
ddnsh, oklagija, Nemiroff and 23 visitors agree.
JDAWG9693, MYPHRONTISTERY, UnleashedPatriotism, LucyTheDebatorQueen, lukeluckynuke123 and 32 visitors disagree.
owe wait. Not on a PragerU video... never mind.
nothing to debunk, that's a fact. it has been steadily decreasing since the great recession ended under president Obama and continues to go down.
same for all economic metrics, it's simply the continuation of the recovery that has been going on for 3 presidential terms already.
Can you debunk the fact that the Job rates are at its Highest in 50 years time period?
and I dont think the statement "boys will be boys and girls will be girls" leaves any room for wiggle room. his showing of failed examples was meant to drive the point that this variability doesnt exist. at all.
your adding meaning that he isnt saying. remember, a beach ball will ALWAYS come up no matter how much you push it down. the entire video is based on numerous absolute statements about the falsity of gender variability.
... who is saying that on the left?
I think that the person would agree that 0.005% of the U.S. population are self-proclaimed transgender. I also think that 0.005% is not enough to make any legitimate point when talking about the general population. I also think that much of the left in the media (not necessarily most of the left, just most of the loud left, which is who I believe he is mainly arguing against) would say that gender is not only flexible, but can change anytime and that there is no issue with changing your self-proclaimed gender at any point.
that third decimal place represents the combined populations of Denver and Washington DC.
regardless, you seem to be avoiding the fact that if he isnt making an absolute statement, then he is agreeing with the left on gender variability, which we know he is not. those statements were meant to be absolutes, and I think your being an apologist in trying to force nuance that isnt there. this video is against gender variability of any kind, calling it a modern delusion.
if this video acknowledges a small percentage (but large total) of gender variability, wouldnt that agree completely with the left wing view on the subject?
so is this video intending to agree with the left? or is it an illogical absolute statement? which one is it?
I literally said that they do matter. But, when dealing with statistics, it is acceptable to say that near 100% are cis instead of having to say that 99.995% are cis. No one is gonna go out of their way to the third decimal point every time
1.6 million people in usa are nonexistent?
it's a small percentage but they are still people.
are you saying the left claims most people are lbgt?!
I would say, extremely rare and near nonexistent, but yes.
so your saying this video is in agreement with the left wing position on gender? since it allows for the occasional variability, and I assume, freedom of expression?
It's not necessarily "valid". Yes, a fallacy is a fallacy, but I believe that you are committing the Fallacy Fallacy, where just because the premises have a fallacy, does not mean the conclusion is incorrect. And, yes, about 1.6 million people in the U.S. (I don't know the stats for the world) are self-proclaimed transgender, but that is out of approximately 327,200,000 people. That is 0.005% of the U.S. population, over 50% of these being adolescents who statistically, often change their mind by 25. I'm not saying that these people don't matter, but they're obviously so small of a proportion that, statistically, saying "always" is excusable.
I don't see how 1/10 is a valid debate tactic. it is a fallacy, but even IF that was his intent, by admitting that there is some variability, wouldnt he by siding with the left on the issue that some minority of people feel differently then the rest of us?
he clearly ridicules the left (siding with granny's common sense over the "nonsense" of the college educated).
so is he making an absolute fallacy?
or is this video supposed to be promoting gender variance?
clearly it's the former, there is no question.
Sorry for the way late response; life has been hectic.
1/10) I think that the absolute statements were meant simply as hyperbole to make a point, being a debating tactic rather than an actual absolute truth
2) While people as a species may have the same desires, I think the point was that men and women definitely go about it differently
3/6) Hormones definitely do impact your emotional state
4/5) I'd have to rewatch the video, I'm not sure what line you're referring to
7/8/9/) It definitely shows that a person's gender often shows in distinct ways through their whole life, even in early developmental stages, and it often fails to force a change from that natural gender.
I'm curious as to your response. this list was made simply from a review of the things I initially said about this video, so noone of it is new. the whole lot can be reduced to either fallacies, or falsifying the other sides arguments. like the claim that graduates think there are no physical differences between women and men. that is ludicrous because it is ludicrous. no one believes that.
I showed he definitely said that absolute statement, which clearly cannot be true. and if he meant to say it as a rule of thumb, then he admits occasional variation, and is therefore AGREEING with the left... unless you think the left claims most people are LBGTQ!
the guy averaged a dishonesty every 21 seconds! I mean some were both a lie and a fallacy, but that's still alot! and i feel they should each count.
I started watching the next one, plenty to say, but I'm also ready to rip into "they naturally want different things from sex" (promiscuous man = conquerer, promiscuous woman = slut, no social influence there). also how does he explain choosy men, and slutty women? do they not exist because he conveniently didnt mention them? intellectual dishonesty at its finest. the first video was good, but this one is definitely my point and you know it.
10. absolute statement #2, this time about boys and girls having no variability.... ever.
that'll round off the list :)
so far we have:
1. an absolute falsehood in the beginning "distinct nature that will ALWAYS rise to the surface." despite warrior women (Joan of arc, vikings) and squirrelly men throughout history. fallacy
2. there is no difference in desire. outright lie. money, power, respect, comfort, accomplishment, excitement, stability. universal.
3. physical difference dont decide emotions. bulk men can still get emotional, slender women can be aggressive. non-sequenter fallacy
4. noone says men and women are the same. however the are women who can beat up most men and vice versa. another lie. misrepresenting what the other side thinks.
5. mixing a reasonable statement with a lie to pass off the lie as obvious. (see #4). fallacy of association
6. claim that physical difference must mean personality difference and no cross examples. fallacy
7. likely comparing children of different development stages. dishonesty
8. saying failure to force gender choice on a child means self chosen genders cant be true. fallacy
9. a pathetic attempt failing must mean all attempts will fail (the kids example). fallacy
I'm at 2:15 of 4:55
this video is so full of maneur I got exhausted all over again after seeing how much I got left to go.
I'm hoping this might be convincing enough to count as a point and I'll move to the 3rd video.
to respond to your "I'm not sure he is making an absolute statement"
he gives 2 examples of parents who failed to forcibly gender modify their children by a single attempt well into their development. with the ultimate conclusion of "because boys will be boys, and girls will be girls". that doesnt sound like a statement with much wiggle room.
but not only is his conclusion wrong because of a technicality. his argument
1. showed children clearly in different parts of development
2. showed examples of other people trying to choose the gender for the individual instead of honest personality expression as per the subject.
3. claimed they failed because they tried 1 time late in the child's development. even if forced gender identity is possible, I dont think 1 attempt is gonna succeed.
the whole argument is nonsense.
if he said general rule, then that is irrelevant to individual cases, which defy the rule of thumb. but that would run counter to the entire argument as the left does not claim that EVERYONE acts like the opposite gender but just some individuals who are within their right to Express themselves as they see fit.
I will have to rewatch and post an exact quote (which is what is stalling my response) but I am 99.99999% certain he said an absolute which is a falsehood. and another reason why PragerU is eliquent horse manure. I hope to be able to establish this point with some time. probably be the end of this 2nd video discussion.
Yeah, I understand. Real life is more important than this app, no matter how fun haha. Just wanted to make sure this thread wasn't dropped
I disagree with the implication if the prompt that PragerU is a bad source.
im curious what exactly the disagees are disagreeing with?
yes. time is the issue. I have yet to finish the second link, or even our discussion about it
Also, I would love to hear your opinion of the third link, Nemiroff, when you have the time
For which video?
I don't think he was saying it as an absolute statement. I think that he was saying, and if I remember right he expressly says, that it is a general rule that women will be feminine with feminine tendencies and men will be masculine with masculine tendencies
The "party switch". Your argument is gonna be about how the party switch did happen and the racists Democrats switched to being racist Republicans.
not at all. they are making an absolute statement.
although most women will be feminine, some women are undoubtably masculine. according to him, their behavior is wrong, and encouraging to Express it is also wrong. it is against her natural behavior, and she is wrong.
there is a vast difference between a rule of thumb and a law of nature.
I agree that parents shouldn't try to make their kid be anything but honorable. But, that doesn't negate that boys and girls, and eventually men and women, have very different natures. And, even most reputable psychological sources claim, when talking about gender dysphoria, that there is a clear difference between a "male" brain and a "female" brain (not to bring up trans issues, just to focus on the brains).
Yes, like I said: the beginning has a strawman and it gets a little too spiritual for my taste at the end.
I'm not really sure what you're saying the issue is on this one? It sounds to me that you're mostly agreeing with them
on a personal note, I think it is wrong to try to influence their personality in either direction. just try to raise the best person they can be. if they go opposite, just roll with it. maybe some hesitation just to be sure.
picking up at the 1:15 mark of the "sex matters" video.
he quotes 2 of 3 examples of boys being boys with girl toys, and girls being girls with boy toys. saying the futility of affecting change in all situations
except I know we all seen counter examples, unless you just dont see alot of children. at a certain age, ALL children engage in "imaginative play". especially around preschool
in slightly later years, like young school age, they get wild. more boys then girls, but many exceptions on both sides.
I would have to dig for definitive proof, but I hope this is obvious to most.
he goes on to explain how the ridiculous belief that men and women are identical is a delusion, which it is.... but because of the earlier association, the gender spectrum, completely irrelevant to the differences of the sexes, is also being falsely labeled a delusion.
whether it is a delusion or isnt, they are damning it by false association with an actual delusion, and that is fallacious.
I'll stop here. this was all within 1 1/4 minutes.
my grandmother did go to college.
and im quite certain you can believe that men and women are different in many ways and still have sexuality on a spectrum. having larger muscles doesnt stop you from crying openly.
I can guarantee you few people say men and women are the same, and combining a sensible point with a ridiculous one doesnt negate the sensible point. although this video does a good job trying to do that.
"men and women have a distinct nature that will ALWAYS rise to the surface"
I hope you can see the issue here. how many prominent examples do we have of reckless, adrenaline junkie women and emotional men?
generally speaking, yes there are clear differences, but far from ALL examples conform to this rule and I believe it is possible to accept generalized knowledge as well as exceptional circumstances. People should be able to express themselves as individuals, even if it doesnt conform to general expectations.
I'm also not sure what needs and desires are different? sex? children? safety? resources? happiness? forget same for both sexes, these extend beyond our species.
I'll save that one for next. let's go with that first link you posted now:
They just posted this one yesterday and I just saw it, but I think this one is also very good.
Yeah, aside from the initial "hire only women" argument in the second video, I think it's one of their best videos.
But, with the exception of my initial criticism of the first link, I think that video is also very good. I would love to hear your explanation as to why it is so fallacious
oh wow. the other video is far worse.
the parts we are debating from the first video are all valid debates with open answers and unknown truth. I just want to stress the opening fallacy as invalid, the rest is all good discussion.
the second video is far more typical with false definitions, expectations, and assumptions abound. (it was actually the first link, but I did it second cause you hyped up the second link as "their best")
I cant copy paste at all anymore, but this Harvard business review article "women dominate college majors that lead to lower-paying work".
in it it highlights how HR and biology dropped in relative pay as women went into them, but were well payed and prestigious when men dominated them. Programming was the opposite. as women got pushed out, salaries went up.
although it could also be that as salaries went up, men rushed into them following the $$. that's a more innocent explanation, however which is truth is an open, and complicated question.
I'm gonna try to do the other video later today.
well yeah. women are not encouraged to take those careers. from a very young age. from parents and teachers, to TV role models all being a certain sex in those careers. seems entirely nurture.
and the other part is a chicken and egg. do women take low paying jobs, or do we pay less to jobs women tend to take? who picked which careers welcomed women?
either way these are both open questions. the major fallacy in the video was the hiring only women fallacy. I hope ive adequately debunked that part of the video.
as I said, their conclusion isnt wrong. the biggest issue is them leaving out the fact that proponents of the wage gap openly know the 0.77 cents is vague and have more specific studies.
why is it that no matter which career men always make alittle more with none being equal or slightly pro women? even women lead jobs men make more. as the video correctly said, there are a ton of factors and variables involved so jumping to either conclusion is premature, that's why I dont make a conclusion. however, do you think there is anything wrong with the liberal solutions I mentioned previously?
I would argue that women are not as encouraged to take those career paths as you may think. For this issue specifically, I would argue for nature over nurture.
And, other than me agreeing that teachers are underpaid, I don't think it is because it is a female-led career.
but yeah, pretty good video, besides the big, "unrealistic expectation or it doesnt exist" fallacy in the beginning, the rest was mostly facts with a bit of missing information, but that can be expected. nothing is perfect.
my only concern was that why not only women nonsense. that is the PragerU I'm expecting.
to repeat: an employer is urgently filling a vacant position. vacant positions cost them money. time screening candidates cost them money. they want a qualified candidate prompto. as long as they are within their acceptable salary range, they wont penny pinch. the argument is unrealistic, no matter how logical it sounds.
I cant cut and paste since my OS update, but correction, 2nd paragraph:
women were active in those careers in their early days, especially computer science.
the next point is true, the original 0.77 wage gap was just simplified, but it was openly so as a starting point and the wage gap was shown for many different industries controlling for all kinds of factors. and of course it was much much smaller.
however the next point of "choice" is questionable. is it a choice if you were compelled to make it? many examples of silicone valley or STEM fields being unwelcoming to women. or during their younger years when they are encouraged towards more "feminine" careers. Especially when women lead many of those careers, especially computer science.
however my main concern is not what choice they make, but why, in almost every example, a "feminine" job makes less then a "masculine" one of equal qualifications. teachers are a prime example, compared to something like an accountant. both require bachelors. for teachers that's just a minimum. they are in short supply, unlike accountants. and they are, imo, of higher social value.
except low wage workers, where the wage gap doesnt exist cause everyone gets the minimum. equality! they are easy to hire and fire, and the bosses make sure they know that.
starting with the wage gap. right away they start with a classic argument. why dont businesses hire just women if its cheaper...
sounds logical. not how reality works.
1. that would look sexist, possibly perverted, and may make for an uncomfortable work environment for either the employees, or the boss.
2. businesses dont willy nilly swap people. they usually need to urgently fill a vacant position. they will take the best candidate readily available, and will have a range they are willing to pay. if they can get away with lower, hooray. but filling the position is usually the prime concern with a salary within reason (or less).
hiring a new employee is expensive, due to the time it takes for them to get up to speed, and the risk if they are not up to standards. a stable employee with reasonable range is the priority, not max cheapness.
I found the toxic masculinity video to be particularly fallacious, but it wouldnt be fair or powerful for me to pick the video I criticize.
only checked the titles. the wage gap sounds like it might be tough. cause the issue is so iffy, complex, and the difference may not be significant. however the left wing solution is simply banning employers from asking about your past pay and allowing workers to reveal their salaries without retribution, both soft solutions that I support and believe can only help and do no harm no matter what the reality is.
however, I'm confident I'll be find plenty of fallacies and misconceptions in a PragerU video even if I dont disagee with the general conclusion. I cant wait for the challenge :)
This was has some minor strawmen in the beginning and some spiritual stuff at the end, but is otherwise pretty good.
This one, I think, is their best video.
its not news, it's fake logical arguments full of very convincing fallacies and false near definitions.
and in my experience it's mostly spread through YouTube ads to unsuspecting living room.
I had to google that to find out what it was. it appears to just be right wing fake news.