We are talking about men not wearing condoms and you point out that it’s only men who can and don’t wear condoms. Like, yeah, of course, because its only men that can wear condoms.
So that point of the argument becomes a tautology without actual direct meaning. It turns from being an argument into a pure attempt of framing/manipulation, and that’s not good style in a discussion.
Apart from it not making any sense in the context of this discussion, the argument itself is pretty flawed in general usage too. The general chain of discussion is usually like this:
A: I am making a wild claim that characterizes all members of group X to be Y.
B: I am refuting this claim by saying that only a very small amount of the members of group X are Y.
A: It’s not all members of group X that are Y, but it’s always members of group X that are Y.
So it shifts the argument. It goes from “All X are Y” to “Some X are Y”, while not acknowledging that shift. It’s a variant of the Bailey and Motte fallacy.
The “it’s always X that are Y” inversion is usually done in a tautological way.
“Not all muslims are islamist terrorists, but it’s always muslims that are islamist terrorists.” -> Sure, because to be an islamist you need to be a muslim, but there are tons of non-islamist/non-muslim terrorists too.
The point is to throw off the person you are talking to, because that tautological part cannot be disproved, and that might make someone stumble in posing a counter-argument.
“Not all X but it’s always X” is a common neonazi saying. Using it in a different context can even be a dogwhistle in some cases
Thanks for pointing that out. I have zero interaction with neonazis and didn’t know.
It’s also a pretty stupid argument, tbh. Which is why it’s used very often by neonazis.
How so?
What do you want to say with it?
We are talking about men not wearing condoms and you point out that it’s only men who can and don’t wear condoms. Like, yeah, of course, because its only men that can wear condoms.
So that point of the argument becomes a tautology without actual direct meaning. It turns from being an argument into a pure attempt of framing/manipulation, and that’s not good style in a discussion.
Apart from it not making any sense in the context of this discussion, the argument itself is pretty flawed in general usage too. The general chain of discussion is usually like this:
So it shifts the argument. It goes from “All X are Y” to “Some X are Y”, while not acknowledging that shift. It’s a variant of the Bailey and Motte fallacy.
The “it’s always X that are Y” inversion is usually done in a tautological way.
“Not all muslims are islamist terrorists, but it’s always muslims that are islamist terrorists.” -> Sure, because to be an islamist you need to be a muslim, but there are tons of non-islamist/non-muslim terrorists too.
The point is to throw off the person you are talking to, because that tautological part cannot be disproved, and that might make someone stumble in posing a counter-argument.