you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]worried19 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'm not much of a philosopher, but for me the QT side seems heavy on pathos but lacking in logos.

[–]Spikygrasspod 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Agreed. The really effective tactics are 1. telling everyone that their critics are right wing bigots, thus isolating us and our ideas from our likeliest allies. 2. associating their movement with gay rights by analogy so that progressives will accept it without looking more closely 3. redefining language and demonstrating so much outrage when people disagree or use different language that many well intentioned people hesitate to say anything at all.

Logically the twaw position is incredibly weak, though, because at the core is equivocation between two terms: 1. woman (female person) and 2. woman (personal identification as a female person despite lacking the key qualification).

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree. I'm holding off posting my own take, but if I had to pick only one quality, that would definitely be it -- it's the pattern I've seen most consistently across the board. (Which isn't to say I've never seen well-executed QT arguments -- the pathos/shaky-data angle just seems very common and persistent.)