Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Claims are constantly being made, many of which are confusing, ambiguous, too general to be of value, exaggerated, unfalsifiable, and suggest a dichotomy when no such dichotomy exists. Good critical thinking requires a thorough understanding of the claim before attempting to determine its veracity. Good communication requires the ability to make clear, precise, explicit claims, or “strong” claims. The rules of reason in this book provide the framework for obtaining this understanding and ability.
This book / online course is about the the eleven rules of reason for making and evaluating claims. Each covered in detail in the book.
|
This isn't necessarily a fallacy. It could be a sarcastic/semi-serious remark, a serious observation (some men do mansplain), or an attempt at dismissing an argument (fallacious). In this case the implicit assumption is that because person 1 is male, they have no right to comment on an issue pertaining to person 2 (who is presumably female). That would normally be considered ad hominem (circumstantial) but as I wrote above, one would need to see if there is actually an argument being made in order for this to apply. |
answered on Saturday, Jun 12, 2021 08:28:14 PM by TrappedPrior (RotE) | |
TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
|
As I see it, it's just unsupported claim. She accuses you of being condescending and as I see it it's an accusation of the way you explained it. Actually I didn't know the term "mansplaining" but in wikipedia it says "(of a man) to comment on or explain something to a woman in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner". It implies there is arrogance behind the explanation (which is psychogenetic fallacy ) but apart from that I would ask specifically whether my explanation was found just condescending or/and false. |
answered on Sunday, Jun 13, 2021 11:06:41 AM by Kostas Oikonomou | |
Kostas Oikonomou Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
|
Since the retort is directed at you personally rather than your explanation it qualifies as an ad hominem (to the man) fallacy as a guilt by association subset. The strength or weakness of your claim is not an issue, but the assumption being made is you’re a man who arrogantly assumes he has the best and most correct answer to everything all the time (and thus a turn off to women). |
answered on Saturday, Jun 12, 2021 07:41:24 PM by Mchasewalker | |
Mchasewalker Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
|
The proper response to the allegation of mansplaining is to correct the error and say: “Mansplaining is a pejorative ad hominem term meaning for a man to comment on or explain something to a woman in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner. You got it wrong, sister. " I’m a woke self-identified Hispanic Caucasian Black Asian identificarian eunuch in gender-transition, not yet fully transcended, but non-binary, cisgender queen-king, quoiromantic, and sometimes cupiosexual paleface with the amalgamated brown and red skin of a Native American Indigenous apparition. I wasn’t mansplaining, I was eunuchsplaining. Got it?” That should end the discussion and you can move on to something important, like the golf scores. |
|||
answered on Sunday, Jun 13, 2021 01:11:23 PM by Dr. Richard | ||||
Dr. Richard Suggested These Categories |
||||
Comments |
||||
|