[Chris2048]

> Sorry, he asked where they were, and went on as if they didn't exist

He described them as 'under-represented', which isn't how you describe something you were claiming didn't exist.

> How do you measure..

Any of those examples could be used as a metric and provide meaning to the question of differing scale. Each one would be a different discussion - the only conclusion is there there is no simple metric that we can make the simple claim that one thing is the same as another, just because of these examples - which is what you're claiming, right?

And you're wrong, I'm not making a claim, I'm just questioning yours. You're trying to shift the burden of proof, but it was you that rudely asserted that your googled evidence showed parents' argument to be ignorant.

> I had the not-at-all-interesting insight to google

Again more snark, but who says you are now informed? You are of that impression, but what a googling? Do you have an education now? Does a 14.8s search-engine lookup make you an expert on the matter for which such arrogance is appropriate? Maybe parent did google, and considered the results weak evidence compared to other sources.

Again, your attack is based entirely on beating the straw-man of "parent claimed there where no grants for men", a claim never made.

> I don't cater to people who chose to be uniformed

What did parent choose? what do you know of parent?

> That is not something I am willing to be polite about under any circumstance

I subscribe to a less conditional for of politeness - especially to those I have no need to respond to at all. And, as I'm arguing, I think you have read unduly into parents post, and your attitude only serves to jump the gun after a hasty mis-judgement.

> holding an opinion that contradicts facts, or stating a "fact" that is simply false are mere agenda building disingenuities

Google = facts? and yet no fact were stated, and now you read a "disingenuous" "agenda" into parents post - isn't this clear that you are reading into parents post more than can be reasonably inferred - that you are applying a stereotype, and fighting a perception that exists within your own biases.

[sophacles]

First of all - the sentence talking about underrepresentation is easily interpretable as "men are underrepresented in nursing and women are underrepresented in building trades" not that grants are. (men and women are the subjects of the sentence, and pronouns usually to refer to the subjects when unqualified in english) I'll allow that its an ambiguous sentence.

Second - I don't claim expert status. I just claim that a small amount of research shows that pure ignorance is a moronic position. Googling doesn't equal facts, but certainly the links I chose - a news organization and a top 20 list to sites that look legit - are enough evidence that an assertion of "where are they" needs some backing beyond "i don't think they exist".

Third: because context matters, this is in response to a comment about the lack of male only tech scholarships, and its sexism to fix the underrepresentation of women in tech with women only scholarships. The post as a response (particularly since it starts with "Agreed.") in support of that notion. Supporting statements about "where are the men only scholarships in nursing". So I answered the question. If you want to switch the subject to grants are being underrepresented (which isn't about the sexism of the existence of gender specific grants, but about the sexism of volume) the onus is on you to evidence your claims. Otherwise it is mere goalpost moving.

Fourth - your evidentiary requirements are amusingly inconsistent. You want to require extra evidence from me, because you don't like me answering the question that was asked about "where are the grants", and question my method of finding the evidence, and provide tons of conjecture (but no real counter evidence) that I'm not making a good argument. Yet you are blindly accepting the claim that they are underrepresented. Even defending it. Yet that claim has 0 supporting evidence (which is less than "flimsy" evidence). Such a set of actions suggest a beginning bias - that you think there is an underrepresentation of grants. Like I said - its amusing, hypocritical and honestly, kind of stupid.

Fifth - since you have chosen to ignore the core of the argument and instead attack my presentation of them, I will assume you are using the fallacy fallacy and ad hominem to try and discredit my point rather than responding to the point itself. Usually (note, because you seem to have problems with this sort of thing - the word usually is distinctly different than always dictionaries may be able to help if you need some explanation) this means you have no actual argument towards the point.

Sixth - you can approach politeness however you want. Fortunately, so can I. It has no relevance to the actual discussion about sexism tho.

[Chris2048]

> the sentence talking about underrepresentation...

fair enough

> are enough evidence that an assertion of "where are they" needs some backing beyond "i don't think they exist"

"where are they" doesn't necessarily assert "i don't think they exist" on a worldwide scale. Very often statements such as these assume a particular location (e.g. the west, the us, etc) and other context (what is the norm / the usual case). But in any case, my post was mainly about how you assumed the intention of parent, and attacked their post; so I think it less important if they poorly supported their argument, and more important that their argument was so poorly supported that it was offensive, and can be attacked as 'ignorant'. I don't want to beat you down for factual in-correctness, but rather for unreasonable manner!

> So I answered the question.

If all you did was that, a constructive argument could be had, that could go in many directions; but this ignores tone entirely. Saying the issue is about 'existence' not 'volume' and is therefore a change in topic is wrong. you assert that the topic is about absolute, worldwide existence of these grants, an extreme straw-man. 'volume' is another common interpretation of 'existence' that seems far more relevant to the context.

> You want to require extra evidence from me, because you don't like me answering the question that was asked about

I guess it was a matter of time before I got the same treatment as op, and had my intentions analysed in bad-faith.

> provide tons of conjecture (but no real counter evidence) that I'm not making a good argument

The issue then is burden of proof. If a claim is made, and the burden on you, then the argument isn't good-until-proven-bad, it needs to meet certain standards first. My 'conjecture' is that you know nothing about parent to make assertions about him. For example, whether you realise it or not, you made an assertion that "[I] don't like me answering the question that was asked about". How do you know this? what do you know of my intentions?

Are you saying I have to prove that you know nothing about me? now that's an amusing evidentiary requirement.

> Yet you are blindly accepting the claim that they are underrepresented

Please quote me on that

> which is less than "flimsy" evidence

Why does 'flimsy' have quotes? I didn't say this.

> its amusing, hypocritical and honestly, kind of stupid.

really? Can you never take the high-road?

> since you have chosen to ignore the core of the argument and instead attack my presentation of them

Let me clarify that - this isn't a case of judging a book by its cover, or an argument by its style; communicating in a rude, abrasive manner is something deserving of criticism in itself. Show me were I've implied that "You argument is invalid because of how it's is presented". I have implied "Your argument is invalid, and it is presented in an unacceptable manner" - These are two issues, but the second relates to the first in that a discussion of the validity of your arguments should require civil discourse.

> I will assume you are using the fallacy fallacy and ad hominem to try and discredit my point

You discredit yourself by presenting your argument in this manner, if this is the case. Are you saying you can be as rude as you like, and if anyone takes exception to it, they're trying to derail your argument?! Then avoid this, and deprive them of this tactic by being civil.

> Usually (note, because you seem to have problems with this sort of thing - the word usually is distinctly different than always dictionaries may be able to help if you need some explanation) this means you have no actual argument towards the point.

sigh, more nasty snark - and why then do you think it's me that has a 'problem'? I would be happier discussing this nicely, you insist on not doing so. Which point are you referring to in this case?

> you can approach politeness however you want.

You seem to approach it from a direction that certainly differs from the dictionary definition. This has no relevance to the topic of sexism, but it is relevant to the discussion of it.

[sophacles]

Again with more disingenuous argument. I've already stated my position on politeness. I don't think people who go on tangents without actually addressing the main points of the argument - in this case that of sexism and the existence of grants (which not even 5% of your comments touch on, other than vague statements of disagreement with no factual backing), deserve politeness. Politeness seems to you to mean "allow people to go on tangents because calling them on stupid bullshit[1] is impolite". I on the other hand see allowing such tangents to be a distraction from the central discussion point, and a way of deflecting actual conversation - an attempt to avoid having to back up an indefensible position.

You can keep harping about your insulted sense of propriety, or you can address the point.

So, do you actually have anything (evidence backed) to say about your belief that there are more grants for women in tech than men in nursing (etc)? Do you have any clarifications of the vague phrase about "on the same order"?

[1] snark is a fantastic method of pointing out bullshit, as is flat out saying "your argument is not addressing the point", as is noting disingenuous behaviour.