What's that latin phrase where people present an argument as though it were a gotcha

[J0y]

Jordan Petersen does this with his arguments. Like in response to a statement that men are dominant in society he lists off ''men are more likely to be depressed, men are more likely to commit suicide, men are more likely to drop out of school'' and he presents these as a gotcha, so no, men aren't more dominant in society.

But yet, men still get paid more even though they drop out of school more often, and women aren't responsible for men committing suicide.

But he does this with all of his arguments, presents them like they were Night Follows Day.

Does anybody know the latin phrase I mean? I was chatting to my friend about JP yesterday and we both agree that he does this and it's so annoying.

Plural PLURAL

Yeah, much better before we got the vote and got sectioned for pretty much any abberance

Yeah, the suffragettes were a bit before my time (and didn't call themselves feminists, either).

Is there a latin word for bullshit posts like yours?

Why would he regret that interview? He didn't do anything wrong.

Is that "after it and because of it"? i didn't do Latin, but I think this is in ep 1 of the West Wing😂

plenus est stercore

I think he regretted it because he was being attacked in the media so much at the time, he started out defensively and when he clarified his actual arguments, she couldn’t follow what he was saying. She’d clearly been briefed, and hadn’t bothered to do her own research, and she floundered and lost the ability to speak. It wasn’t because what he was saying didn’t make sense, she just needed more time to process the nuances of his arguments, and to fill the painful silence he said ‘ha … gotcha’. I think he was trying to lighten the moment, but as she was so clearly out of her depth, it seemed a bit mean.

Do you mean that saying where it means something like, just because this one thing happened/is true doesn’t mean it causes this other thing? I remember a Latin phrase being explained to me like that but I can’t remember anything else! So just because men take their own life more often it doesn’t follow that they are therefore less dominant?

Interesting
I don't remember him even saying that

i just remember thinking it was good someone had presented the points so well, and wondered if Cathy had got stuck in that situation where her employer asked her to defend a position she might not believe in herself.

I was also going to say reductio ad absurdum, but there is also another one that is on the tip of my tongue that I can't quite remember.

ergo or qed?

my response would be …Quid hoc ad pretium piscium pertinet?

I dunno, but sorry that feminism made you sad.

I like to say ‘what’s that got to do with the price of fish’ ie absolutely nothing. Or to quote Gino de Campo, “ If my Grandma had wheels she’d be a bicycle”

The book I meant was the book in my post that you referred to: Men Who Hate Women by Laura Bates.

Well worth a read to see how legitimate concerns get twisted for hateful means and how to spot it when they are.

is it ad hominem?

It means "since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X"

or
after this, therefore because of this

Either works 😉

It was Season 1 Ep 2 of TWW as well. Well remembered there

Are you sure the phrase is latin @J0y ? Are you thinking about schadenfreude?

I will check it out tomorrow, thanks, it’s caught my attention before, but I’ve not got to it yet (I work with books).

Other option is res ipsa loquitur - the thing speaks for itself which is/was a legal "argument".

I think QED is the most obvious though

Res ipsa loquitur?

It speaks for itself ....?

Tibi cacas in cerebro !

Increasingly women do take the reins, still a mess. We've just lost a woman PM, not exactly a great example of successful women though you don't get much higher in politics here in the UK.

Q E D