Does this count as Socratic irony?

[CoalTit]

Equality would surely mean women killing 2-3 men a week? That's not on is it?

Concise, elegant and understated post by an anonymous genius calling herself @Sackrifice on a recently deleted thread. Sums up the problem of male violence and the problem with the ideal of "equality in a man's world". I wanted more people to see it and go around quoting it. I would also like someone who knows about these things to tell me if this is an example of Socratic irony.

It’s reductio ad absurdum.
You could get there by using Socratic irony.

I must admit I did metaphorically doff my cap to that poster!

And yes, I would say that the And that's not on, is it? seen as a serious question, would make it Socratic irony!

Yes and I'm going to steal it.

Socratic irony is a debating technique where Socrates faints ignorance about a topic others assume to be self evident, e.g. the definition of justice. They then attempt to explain the topic only to discover that they themselves are ignorant. Tends to piss off people.

Can’t see why this is Socratic irony. Maybe just irony.

Of you asked Socratic questions about the nature of equality you could get there. Is equality good? Should men and women be equal? Behave equally? In all circumstances?...

No mate, that’s equity. Equality deals with treatment and opportunity. Equity is outcome. They often don’t coincide

Booboo Asking if that's not on is the feigning of ignorance of a self evident statement!

Without that question the first sentence would itself be irony!

Adding ‘that’s not on’ doesn’t make something either Socratic aporia or the elenchus...at least not any way i have been taught them or have taught them in turn.

Ach! It's all maieutics to me!

Adding ‘that’s not on’ doesn’t make something either Socratic aporia or the elenchus Is missing the point, as it does not acknowledge the actual question used in the sentence... I said asking not adding

But full marks for use of Google!

Socrates feigns ignorance about a topic others assume to be self evident, e.g. the definition of justice.
That's what I thought the "That's not on, is it?" part was doing; asking if it would be all right if it were women doing the murdering, thus pointing out seems to be all right with men doing it.
Er, what Curious said!
I'll go and look up aporia and elenchus

Aporia is just 'perplexing' and elenchus is the Socratic method of questioning, using logic. If you do ever teach Socratic questioning to research students you tend to get used to the myriad ways of saying the same thing. There are always Latin and Greek variants, at the very least

Oh, Elenchus are creatures!

I did have to look that last fact up

@racecardriver No mate, that’s equity. Equality deals with treatment and opportunity. Equity is outcome. They often don’t coincide has got me thinking.
Male violence is not just an outcome; it's also a tool used to terorise women. There are more male murder victims than female, but men aren't constantly told about all the things they must and musn't do to avoid being held responsible for attacks on them by strangers.

I can understand you confusion but you are conflating one outcome with another. The fact that men are violent isn’t the cause of warnings made to women about sensible behaviour. Women’s vulnerability to attack is the inequality that leads to the increased warnings equity outcome. If male violence was the inequality (which disproportionately affects men by your measure) then the equity would be that men received greater warnings. You’ve moved on to a different issue of equity (why women get more warnings than men) and made a deductive error by thinking that men being more likely to be murdered has somehow resulted in more warnings for women when it is actually the weakness or perceived weakness that gives rise to these warnings.

Curious did you mean to be so rude? I am a philosopher, I teach using the Socratic elenchus, as do most western philosophers. It is a way of developing critical thinking skills by encouraging students to question everything. The sentences the OP quoted is not the socratic elenchus.

Did I mean to be so rude

You could be anyone, Booboo But wandering in, throwing down the big words and telling posters they are wrong isn't the way to educate, or even communicate pleasantly.

But it is amusing!

Oh, and I am not a philosopher, but have taught many students myriad ways to conduct qualitative research, reducing bias, not leading PPs etc. In my opinion that sentence could, broadly speaking be considered to be Socratic irony!

You know, real life versus the dogma of theoretical usage.

Have you even read my po

Quick , hide the hemlock.

Sorry, iPad playing up.

Have you even read my posts? I provided a definition of the term, that is pretty much central to education especially when someone asks if something is an instance of another thing. My second post used two other terms in their original, so what? Why is this unpleasant communication? I also said this is how I teach the terms which gives you a hint as to my profession.

So to recap, you are not a philosopher, you do not teach philosophy but you still know best? Have you read any Plato? Or can you answer the question from a position of absolute ignorance nonetheless?

If the irony was not there at the beginning of the thread it is emerging now.

Well, Boohoo, I noticed that no-one commented on your saying Socrates "faints" ignorance - so they haven't been as "rude" as they could have!

Placemarking for deletion message.

bloodybridget thanks for lowering the bar! Yes I did mean feigns, clearly it was an autocorrect error but if you prefer we can conduct the rest of this discussion in Greek. Ας ελπίσουμε ότι τα ελληνικά σου είναι τόσο καλά όσο τ´αγγλικα μου.

@racecardriver "thinking that men being more likely to be murdered has somehow resulted in more warnings for women"
Eh? That's not what I think, and that's not what I said. I said male violence or rather, the threat of it is used as a tool to subdue women, rather than men.
"Sensible behaviour" is a such a broad, subjective term that it impedes any further rational discussion.
I get the impression that, rather than consider what I'm saying, you're trying to show off something that you were taught, but haven't really understood. Or the phrase "sensible behaviour" is a crude attempt to manipulate. I can't tell which.

When men get raped, is their underwear paraded around courtrooms as 'evidence'? If not, why not?

This raging argument between philosophers is quite funny. Right in the spirit of Ancient Greece, I'm sure! I don't read or speak Greek, Boohoos, honestly you don't need to carry on demonstrating your learning. Sorry for the dig!

Greek Hoch QaQ law' tlhIngan Apparently!

Booboo I have no idea why you are so angry. This is AIBU, we are all anonymous, none of our real life counts for anything on threads like this.

The OP was a very interesting one. The sentence under discussion is deserving of a better inquisition than it is getting. I apologise, CoalTit for my part in that.