Science Fan wrote: ↑
Thu Apr 05, 2018 4:51 pm
PE is right --- it actually is a zero-sum game. When men had the right to vote and women didn't, then that meant male politicians did not have to worry about competing against female politicians. It also meant men did not have to worry about legislation that may have favored fair treatment of women. While men still had the right to vote, they could no longer treat women with impunity and get away with it. A similar event occurred when colored people could vote, and poor white men could vote, those who previously had a monopoly on voting saw a decline in their political power, that they now had to share with the Other.
You are committing the same fallacy as PE. You beautifully and eloquently describe how POWER is diminished. But the original claim was not that power was diminished, but that rights were diminished by giving the same rights to other people. I am not wrong, in saying that nobody has come up with an actual, historical example of how someone's, ANYONE's rights were reduced by giving the same rights to others.
You, SF, are committing the same Strawman fallacy. You are equating power to rights. They are not the same and I WONT DISCUSS WHY THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. But you make the same bloody unnecessary point as PE, by stating an argument I am not concerned with, and the OP's question is not concerned with.
Why do people on this board have so much difficulty with 1. reading the propositions and focussing on their meanings and 2. differentiating between nuanced concepts? You are philosophers. Man up, and act like them.
I am not disagreeing with your point, SF, and with PE's point. I am only saying that you two are talking about things that are not germane to the topic.
If you got lost again, I repeat:
THE TOPIC IS HOW RIGHTS ARE LOST BY GIVING THE SAME RIGHTS TO OTHERS. THE TOPIC IS NOT
HOW POWER IS LOST BY GIVING THE SAME RIGHTS TO OTHERS.