Comments by "seneca983" (@seneca983) on "How Feminism Changed Western Civilization" video.

@minestar2247 "absence of evidence is not evidence of absense" This is just a general point and thus slightly off-topic, but absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It may typically be very weak evidence but it is evidence nonetheless.
11
@CovocNexus "the voting power in a democracy should belong to those who will fight for the country" Why should it? Btw, in the US this criterion would also disqualify most men also.
10
"No society in history has advanced much and had women's rights, even those who were more equal." What are you talking about? It's clearly the more equal countries that are more advanced.
8
@blugaledoh2669 "how would an effective conscription of women work?" You can probably get your answer by looking at Israel. Israel has mandatory military service for both men and women, though for women it's a bit shorter. For men the minimum length is 32 months; for women it's 24 months.
7
@sleeper9638 Do you have a source for that claim?
5
"But what if the absence of such civilizations is an insight by itself?" That's doubtful. That kind of social organization is more possible today due to things like modern technology.
4
@BeachandHills-hb2pq "You were a Republic and those who fight get the vote." You're just stating that without giving a justification for why that should be the case.
3
@DerpyRedneck The description of regression fallacy that I can find says :"It assumes that something has returned to normal because of corrective actions taken while it was abnormal. This fails to account for natural fluctuations." That has nothing to do with what I talked about as I didn't mention any kind of action but merely making inferences based on observation. Whatever you call the mathematics I presented doesn't change its rigor. If you think it's wrong, feel free to point out any errors. By the laws of probability, absence of evidence is necessarily evidence of absence (though it may typically be only weak evidence). You can't avoid that. If some observation is evidence for a hypothesis then observing the opposite must evidence against. Otherwise you're just being inconsistent. That's what we mean when we say that scientific theories have to be falsifiable. You can't say that you can only observe evidence for a theory but not against it.
3
@volodimirivanevko9238 "a mother was position of respect, rather the derision we see today" I don't really see such derision today.
2
@DerpyRedneck It's not a fallacy but a mathematical inevitability and I can give you a proof. Suppose you have a hypothesis A. Then some kind of observation B is evidence for it. You believe A with some prior probability P(A). Now the probability of A conditional on B, i.e. P(A|B) (posterior probability) must be greater than P(A), i.e. P(A|B)>P(A) which also means that P(A|B)/P(A)-1>0. Now, we mark this evidence not being observed with ¬B. If that's evidence against A it would mean that P(A|¬B)<P(A). Does that follow from the preceding? Yes, it does. By the law of total probability P(A)=P(A|B)P(B)+P(A|¬B)P(¬B). If we divide both sides by P(A) we get 1=(P(A|B)/P(A))P(B)+(P(A|¬B)/P(A))P(¬B). Observe that P(B)+P(¬B)=1 so we can replace the left-hand side with that and we get P(B)+P(¬B)=(P(A|B)/P(A))P(B)+(P(A|¬B)/P(A))P(¬B). Subtract P(B) and P(¬B) from both sides and simplify using common factors. Then we get 0=(P(A|B)/P(A)-1)P(B)+(P(A|¬B)/P(A)-1)P(¬B). Now, because P(B), P(¬B), and P(A|B)/P(A)-1 are all positive, P(A|¬B)/P(A)-1 must be negative or the expression could not equal zero. Thus P(A|¬B)<P(A).
2
@Owlbear-v5c There's no separate "other way around". The original comment didn't explicitly say anything about causation to one direction or another but simply made a claim about correlation (which is symmetric unlike causality). Just look at the wording: "No society in history has advanced much and had women's rights" [emphasis added]. The "and" here on its face means just correlation, not causation. Of course, the comment probably wanted to also imply causation (to a particular direction) but that doesn't really matter because even the explicitly claimed correlation doesn't seem to be there.
2
Do matrilinear societies have more deadbeats?
1
@GigaNietzsche At least in the current day, more patriarchal societies seem to be doing less well than less patriarchal ones.
1
@pyongyangbroadcastingservi3086 "If 1.26 million annual maternal deaths comes from an 8 billion population" I'm guessing you're taking this number from Our World in Data which gets it from using the maternal death rate for Finland and Sweden in 1800? It should be noted that other places may have had a higher rate, possibly much higher, in the past. It seems e.g. South Sudan today has more than 3x that rate.
1
@pyongyangbroadcastingservi3086 That doesn't really affect what I was saying. I just meant that if the rate of maternal death due to giving birth in the past was similar to South Sudan today (which sounds plausible, though hardly certain), the numbers of deaths from giving birth in the past might be 3x or 4x what you calculated. That might still not be enough to overturn your argument but I still wanted to mention it.
1
@sleeper9638 "who's main civilisational developments came from being colonised" I don't think that's correct, at least not for Indonesia.
1
@jimmierustler4887 That doesn't still answer my "why" question which was my main point.
1
@CovocNexus I don't think you can reasonably call Fuentes a "fed".
1
@GigaNietzsche That's rather vague. I still don't see why voting rights should be tied to military service (like OP said).
1
@JSM-bb80u Don't say that to me. I'm not in favor such restrictions of voting rights.
1
@JSM-bb80u I depends on the case. I think some countries can't adequately defend themselves without conscription so in those cases I (unhappily) support it for the time being. However, I wouldn't take anyone's vote away e.g. for dodging service.
1
@minestar2247 I just wanted to point out that this common refrain isn't really quite true.
1