Wow, Chesterton could be such an old fraud, couldn't he?
Let's look at this stuff. First there's Basic Conflation. Repeat after me. "Women support animal rights. Women wear fur coats. Women are illogical."
In Chesterton's case, it's done by the crude device of talking about "
the rationalist", and what "he" does, as though there were just one, and "he" held every opinion ever held by anyone whom Mr Chesterton wishes to classify as a "rationalist".
I notice that you have adopted the same tactic yourself, when you talk of "
the rationalist view".
Then there's the good old Fallacy of Equivocation.
"Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it."
Hoo boy.
Let's see how postmodern Chesterton is. It would seem that he supports sexual freedom for women one moment, when he's talking about the right to leave harems in Turkey, but against it when he's talking about, for example, the right to leave a marriage in England.
Can't he just decide whether he's for or against sexual freedom? Well, no, he can't, because I would include under that term [b]both[/i] the right not to be raped
and lots of other stuff which he wouldn't approve of at all. In the same way, how can I take a stance on the "purity of women" when he includes in that category
both the right to say "no"
and an extremely limited and conditional right to say "yes"?
Anyway, you were lecturing us on the irrationality of rationalists.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2