Talk:Apex fallacy

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Huh? These are poor examples of apex fallacy. I'm not a fan of MRA, but they would not say anything remotely like, "That's the apex fallacy, I can find 43 poor guys, too! Therefore, women have just as much power as men!"

Yeah, I know that was supposed to be parody, but parody needs to have some truth. Otherwise, it's just propaganda.

I'm interested in this topic because this is one of the very few things that MRAs got right. What they actually are saying is that while men overwhelmingly occupy the very top echelon of power and wealth, the worst off in society are also men - the abandoned homeless, soldiers sent to die in pointless wars, sewer cleaners, etc. Men make up both the very top and bottom. That was the point of Apex Fallacy, at least as it was presented to me. — Unsigned, by: 72.177.73.158 / talk / contribs

This article was written as a response to the version of the Apex fallacy presented at Wikipedia. But it should also respond to your point, and I'm not quite sure how. Ideas? The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 06:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Jesus H tapdancing Christ what happened here? I came to revise my formal logic and giggle at a couple of snarky examples, and somebody seems to have ctrlV'd their facebook tiff with the local chapter of RoK. Serious de-rail. Next time just edit in pictures of spiderman. 81.145.153.190 (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Blame MRAs for their egregious abuse of logic, then. Queexchthonic murmurings 12:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Check your stopped clock, friend. Powerful groups of men do not necessitate the average man being more powerful than the average woman. Separate the logic from the content, and they are (for once) justified to point out the fallacy. 81.145.153.190 (talk) 13:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
"Powerful groups of men do not necessitate the average man being more powerful than the average woman." If that was the logic employed to point out that the average woman has it worse than the average man, they would be a stopped clock. But it isn't, so they're not. Glad to clear that up for you. Queexchthonic murmurings 13:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
@81: Modified the page, it might make more sense to you. Aye? FuzzyCatPotato of the Clumsy Wigwams (talk/stalk) 15:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks FCP - had previously only come across the idea separate from its sexist context. Little intro to that near the start helps the article flow towards its conclusion rather than crash into it ^_^ 81.145.153.190 (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Really unclear summary[edit]

The summary is just a mess, and needs a rewrite. Even with the syllogisms under the example section, it's not perfectly clear. Besides, I thought the Apex fallacy was about endlessly comparing what's actually going on to some impossibly perfect fantasy version of that same thing, i.e. always leaving lots of room for concern trolling the current try at whatever's being attempted? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Better? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 18:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Citation needed[edit]

The article claims males are more privileged than females yet offers nothing to support this beyond the author's opinion - not very "rational" — Unsigned, by: 71.56.222.82 / talk

Urban Dictionary reference is not helping the neutrality of this article[edit]

Also it is interesting to note that it cannot be deleted, without intervention of an administrator, eventhough a comment is added. Even Wikipedia does not require this...

The citation should be deleted, because it uses insults (only mysognists use the apex fallacy as argument) and subjective opinion, stating them as facts.

Urban Dictionary clearly has no place in a *rational* article. — Unsigned, by: 88.219.179.64 / talk