Is the old quality woman/low quality woman debate a fallacy

[Stagger Lee]

I think in a way I just found the explanation for why it is a logical fallacy to make arguments like, "things are shades of gray" or "a quality woman is not possible to determine", or good marriages etc. It's called a continuum fallacy.

"The fallacy causes one to erroneously reject a vague claim simply because it is not as precise as one would like it to be. Vagueness alone does not necessarily imply invalidity.

The fallacy appears to demonstrate that two states or conditions cannot be considered distinct (or do not exist at all) because between them there exists a continuum of states. According to the fallacy, differences in quality cannot result from differences in quantity."

"Quality/low quality", and "benefits of marriage" are vague by nature and just because people lie along a continuum doesn't mean it's all gray and quality isn't determinable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy

 

[Joe Stud]

Watchu talkin bout willis?? :crazy:

 

[Stagger Lee]

Well if you spent anytime reading the MM forum you'd know that quality women and marriage are highly debated topics and what I mentioned is a common argument made. No need to be snooty just because you are unaware or ignorant of the topic.

 

[Colossus]

I don't think he was being snooty.

Quality is in the eye of the beholder. It's fine if you have developed a standard of quality with regards to women, but the "quality" label becomes an error when a guy simply paints the bullseye around the target instead of choosing based on his own evidence and preference-based selection parameters.

In other words, an AFC could land a girl and call her "quality" simply because she was the first fish to bite or maybe the best he can attract at that given time. Conversely, he could label a woman "low quality" because she reacted appropriately to his AFC behavior or just didn't act in the way he expected she would.

A DJ needs to have some non-negotiables and build his standard before his selection, not adapt his standard to the girl.

 

[Stagger Lee]

I don't think he was being snooty.

Quality is in the eye of the beholder. It's fine if you have developed a standard of quality with regards to women, but the "quality" label becomes an error when a guy simply paints the bullseye around the target instead of choosing based on his own evidence and preference-based selection parameters.

In other words, an AFC could land a girl and call her "quality" simply because she was the first fish to bite or maybe the best he can attract at that given time. Conversely, he could label a woman "low quality" because she reacted appropriately to his AFC behavior or just didn't act in the way he expected she would.

A DJ needs to have some non-negotiables and build his standard before his selection, not adapt his standard to the girl.

Well I think his terse reply, "Watchu talkin bout willis??" followed by the confused and the loco emoticon was snooty to say the least.

Not that I disagree with the rest of your post but it really didn't have much to do specifically with my point. I was adressing the argument that is often made and that goes beyond what you just posted, "things aren't black and white, everything is gray and indeterminate, it's impossible to determine a quality girl/low quality girl" etc. But back to your point, both sides are painting the bullseye around the arrow. If it truely is gray and indeterminate then it is indeterminate and there's no point in all the debates.

All I can do is requote my original point,

The fallacy appears to demonstrate that two states or conditions cannot be considered distinct (or do not exist at all) because between them there exists a continuum of states. According to the fallacy, differences in quality cannot result from differences in quantity.

So according to that it is a fallacy to say there is not distinct quality women and low quality women if you accept that women vary.

Here's another one,

The fallacy causes one to erroneously reject a vague claim simply because it is not as precise as one would like it to be. Vagueness alone does not necessarily imply invalidity.

So just because the claim of quality and low-quality woman is vague doesn't necessarily mean it is invalid.

I realize both sides have made other arguments and expounded on them, but this is the main arguments that I've seen made on the topic. For instances, Str8up had some interesting ideas but he put the standard so high where you could not determine quality until after the lifespan of the woman or the man was reached. That's just being extreme.

 

[bigjohnson]

So according to that it is a fallacy to say there is not distinct quality women and low quality women if you accept that women vary.

That's not what it actually says. It says it's a fallacy to claim there is no such thing as A or B because there exists a continuum, it does not invalidate other reasons to reject the categorization nor does it imply that A and B even exist.

To make the above true I think you have to say "So according to that it is a fallacy to say there is not distinct quality women and low quality women if you accept that women vary in quality"

 

[Stagger Lee]

That's not what it actually says. It says it's a fallacy to claim there is no such thing as A or B because there exists a continuum, it does not invalidate other reasons to reject the categorization nor does it imply that A and B even exist.

To make the above true I think you have to say "So according to that it is a fallacy to say there is not distinct quality women and low quality women if you accept that women vary in quality"

I did say that earlier that if you accept that women vary then it does apply. Unless their argument is that no women vary or all women are the same which I don't think any one made that extreme argument. The continuum fallacy and sorites fallacy has more implications than just the continuum, if you read the links it it also adress the paradox of what qualities or how much have to be taken away before the determining when labels such as quality exists or not.

My point is both sides were resorting to fallacies. Both sides were being vague and not setting the standard they were arguing for or against.

 

[bigjohnson]

I did say that earlier that if you accept that women vary then it does apply.

I accept that women vary; I do not accept that the possible variations can necessarily be boiled down into a single dimensional scale named "quality".

 

[Stagger Lee]

I accept that women vary; I do not accept that the possible variations can necessarily be boiled down into a single dimensional scale named "quality".

Well that's the point if you can't define what is quality than how can you define low quality? Or at the very least how can you say something or some woman is not quality if have you no definition of quality. If it's indeterminate than leave it at that and that ends the debate. Your denial that quality can't be determined despite admitting there is variance is an example of continuum fallacy but I'm not going to push the issue.

 

[bigjohnson]

Your denial that quality can't be determined despite admitting there is variance is an example of continuum fallacy but I'm not going to push the issue.

No, it's really not. The continuum fallacy states that even though it can be determined there is no category high and low because it falls on a spectrum, which is a different thing entirely.

 

[Stagger Lee]

No, it's really not. The continuum fallacy states that even though it can be determined there is no category high and low because it falls on a spectrum, which is a different thing entirely.

Right it falls on a spectrum just like a heap of sand and a grain of sand does, but what I'm saying is if you can see distinction, then that's what matters. This is one of the things I'm getting at is taking an extreme view that there must be an idealized and undefined "quality/low quality label" in the first place is extreme when all you need to see is a distinction and it's all relative. Some would set the bar so high and claim it impossible to tell if a woman met or didn't meet the standard.

Let me just put it another way. First define what you believe a quality/low quality woman is. And just because one doesn't have all those qualities to then say "well is she still quality/low quality? It's impossible to tell" is an example of the continuum or sorites fallacy. And if you have no definition then you have no basis of argument.