No again.
Yes, you are misrepresenting what I’m saying because. You’re creating a false dilemma with your either/or. Your case is fundamentally flawed.
This is what you’re pitching:
Your pitch: something is a right within a society if the majority of society deem it a right or it is codified into law. (In NZ, yes, this is the status quo)
Case: *in some countries*, the majority deem the ability to subjugate a wife to be a right and that is codified into law.
What you are alluding to is that because one society has codified something that I would disagree with into their society laws that it follows that all rights codified in such a way are wrong.
FALSE
By that same leap, one could state:
All men have penises
Some use their penises to sexually assault women.
Therefore all men sexually assault women.
This argument is obviously wrong but it is the same logic that you are using to try to create a false dilemma. Clearly, not all men sexually assault women.
That’s where the logic is going wrong. The mental leap from some to all is without foundation. Just because one society deems something right and codifies it into law, it doesn’t follow that everything that is codified and deemed into law everywhere at all times is acceptable nor that I personally must agree with it. You’re crafting a false either-or dilemma to force the narrative down a particular path because it suits your purposes but the argument doesn’t work which is why I pulled out a Venn diagram.
Not all societies or laws are equal but based on statistics and research, NZ got it right. That’s the bit that you were challenging.
There is no logical conclusion. I’m not the one with the burden of proof, remember? I posted, you tried to redefine rights. I rejected your premise and I’m pointing out the flaws in your logic. I’m not the one trying to change the status quo. That’s you.
We’ve been going at this for a while now (I don’t mind — either I can stand up for what I believe in or I get off the soapbox). But I’m interested in what you want the outcome to be? Is this just a back and forth for the sake of it?
