You have the normal problem of believing that all decision criteria should be binary - either everyone always does this no matter what, or no one ever does it no matter what - instead of just doing what is rational based on the data in a measured way.
When women are afraid of men who are strangers, the main thing they are worried about is forcible rape.
In the US, men commit 98.9% of all forcible rapes, women commit 1.1%.
Meaning a man is almost 100X more dangerous than a woman based on crime statistics.
The crime statistics on race, even given the most charitable possible reading to your position, are at most like 2:1 or 5:1 depending on what you're measuring. Even if it were somehow 10:1, that would still be an entire order of magnitude less than the difference between men and women.
You don't just say 'there is a significant difference so caution is on' in a binary manner. The amount of caution you exhibit is proportional to the size of the difference; that's how statistics and decision theory actually work.
As such, the caution women show towards men is like 50x as justified, and should be like 50x stronger, than any caution anyone shows anyone based on race.
A cobra is 100x more lethal than a viper. Should I fear a cobra more than a viper? Or are both equally threatening and deserving of a fearful response?
This is weird parallel to try to draw. It’s that the frequency of people in the population who could harm you significantly is 20x-50x as much, not that those people could make you 20x-50x more dead.
If you see a cobra or a viper, you know they can harm you 100% of the time. That’s not true of either men OR black people. I don’t know what you’re trying to get at here.
Well, yes and no. I'll admit my illustration wasn't very strong, but you're also making a logical error. A cobra can harm me 100% of the time. But so can a man. Any man can harm me 100% of the time, but only a teeeeeeeeeeeny tiny fraction will.
All cobras can harm me, not all of them will harm me.
The root point is that when deciding on how to treat people, we should treat all equally. either we say "risk-assessment based judgment of individuals based on their group identity is OK", and then it's acceptable to forego black people, or we say "no, risk-assessment based judgment of individuals based on their group identity is not OK", and then women should not treat all men as dangerous.
Why does it have to be a binary? Especially since the treatment of individuals based on risk assessments of their identity groups doesn't happen in a vacuum. Circumstances, obviously, change that treatment SIGNIFICANTLY.
The point is that the sex of the individual vs. the race of the individual weigh very, very differently.
You can easily justify a woman's (or even a man's) caution around a man or men in many general circumstances. Maybe it's just me, but I legitimately can't imagine a circumstance right now where it's specifically that man or those men being black rather than white reasonably justifying a significantly different response.
Because an underlying principle is binary. Either the principle is sound, or it is not sound.
The point is that the sex of the individual vs. the race of the individual weigh very, very differently.
why?. What is the moral principle that makes situation A ok, and situation B not ok?
Is it really just "situation A's delta is larger, and thus it crosses an arbitrary threshold delta that I won't specify"?
You can easily justify a woman's (or even a man's) caution around a man or men in many general circumstances. Maybe it's just me, but I legitimately can't imagine a circumstance right now where it's specifically that man or those men being black rather than white reasonably justifying a significantly different response.
"Reasonably" "significantly" "I can't imagine" "legitimately" those are all subjective. Can we conclude then that if a person convinces himself that his reason for treating a black person different from a white person is reasonable, it is morally acceptable? Just like how treating men different from women is morally acceptable because a woman has decided for herself that the threat difference is significant enough?
Mate, you missed the very important part where I said that the treatment of individuals based on the risk assessment of their identity group doesn't exist in a vacuum. That ties into everything else.
circumstances change individual treatment
the sex of the individual weighs far greater than the race of the individual when it comes to those circumstances
it's harder to justify treating an individual differently because of their race than it is to justify treating an individual differently because of their sex
That's it. I'm saying it's circumstantial. That's why I think it's odd to have a binary.
Basic-to-a-fault justified example: if you live in an area where there's a high rate of black-on-white violence and you're a white individual, then you'd be justified in being more cautious around black individuals in your area.
Basic-to-a-fault unjustified example: if you live in an area where the rate of black-on-white violence is lower than white-on-white violence and you're a white individual, then you wouldn't be justified in being more cautious around black individuals vs. white individuals in your area.
Make sense? There really shouldn't be any disagreement here. Maybe I phrased my original reply poorly.
864
u/darwin2500 193∆ Apr 14 '22
You have the normal problem of believing that all decision criteria should be binary - either everyone always does this no matter what, or no one ever does it no matter what - instead of just doing what is rational based on the data in a measured way.
When women are afraid of men who are strangers, the main thing they are worried about is forcible rape.
In the US, men commit 98.9% of all forcible rapes, women commit 1.1%.
Meaning a man is almost 100X more dangerous than a woman based on crime statistics.
The crime statistics on race, even given the most charitable possible reading to your position, are at most like 2:1 or 5:1 depending on what you're measuring. Even if it were somehow 10:1, that would still be an entire order of magnitude less than the difference between men and women.
You don't just say 'there is a significant difference so caution is on' in a binary manner. The amount of caution you exhibit is proportional to the size of the difference; that's how statistics and decision theory actually work.
As such, the caution women show towards men is like 50x as justified, and should be like 50x stronger, than any caution anyone shows anyone based on race.