Aug 24, 2017 · 2 min read
- You have committed a fallacy known as “shifting the burden of proof”. You claimed that the author does not understand gender, then immediately backpedaled by saying that you are not the subject matter expert and left it on someone else to prove your opinion. Please, if you claim something, either provide arguments for it or don’t claim anything at all.
- To me, this honestly looks like a politician’s speech: Lots of inspiring quotes, very skillfully saying very little. The bottom line seems to be something along the lines of: “Engineering is a lot more people-oriented than you think”. Fair enough, but doesn’t it still require you to build a device at the end of the day? You consider it “basic skills that anyone can learn”, and you consider the human interaction part the hardest. You, a self-proclaimed introvert. See what I’m getting at? Perhaps the author just wanted to make it easier for certain people to do a task that you consider trivial, but others might find difficult. Quite understandably, you would be blind to his argument then.
- Another fallacy, this time “Ad Hominem Attack”. This part contains exactly zero arguments, several baseless accusations and lots of shaming, even a threat or two. If somebody writes a manifesto about problems with silencing opposition by shaming, you should NOT in turn try to silence him by shaming, you are only proving his point! You probably wrote this part in anger, perhaps even righteous anger, but nevertheless, this passionate hatred has no place in a civilized debate.
In the end, I wasn’t convinced by any of your points. If you feel like I misinterpreted some of your points or missed something, feel free to respond. I’ll gladly be convinced :)
