Someone in the comment thread on that post linked to this article. I think it's great news that children of working mothers turn out to be just as well-adjusted as children of stay-at-home mothers. Families can choose from a wide variety of options without feeling guilty about it.
There are flaws with that article that we could get into, depending on who wants to (the inquiry may not be productive).
Is it actually the case that children turn our the same in both stay-at-home and working-parent scenarios? Certainly that one article does not justify that statement alone.
Families may not feel guilty of what they chose, but that does not necessitate that it was the right choice or option. So, what is the right one?
"I started skimming the attachment, and I'm have to agree with the others about the author being quite nitpicky on stuff, rather than addressing content."
If is interesting that everyone gravitates to the grammar aspect that I mention, other than all the other comments about the arguments structure. By the way, "I'm have to agree" is poor use of English. If we cannot properly use our own language, how can we communicate effectively?
"That is not true. An "and" after a comma is used in a compound sentence, and it is perfectly correct. (See what I did there?)"
Just because you say it is correct, does not mean it is. A comma and "and" are both conjuncts. When used together, it is redundant and unnecessary.
"You prove a claim, you don't proof it. And what's with the "Ibid" after about half of the quotes? I could go on, but I think that would just put me in the nitpicky category. I'm just trying to show no one's perfect. I've probably made multiple mistakes in this post. But the point I'm trying to communicate is that content is what's important, rather than the fact that I might have a run on sentence or comma splice or something."
Hence why I first mentioned it was a draft since I noticed errors after posting. Either way, content cannot be the main focus when there is no argument structure or little to no reasoning. Again, you seem to only gravitate to my comments on grammar and not the others that address her argument.
"(And, funny enough, the point I'm trying to communicate is that it's the point one is trying to communicate that's important. Since the OP missed that to begin with, it may be pointless here. Also, was it bad etiquette of me to point out that pun?)"
How can you communicate your point effectively if it is illogical, fallacious, vague, unclear or has grammar errors? That is poor academics and as rational human beings just plain lazy. We ought to further our learning at all times or risk losing our rationality.
"In any case, from piecing it together from the quotes, and assuming nothing was left out, I think the original comment could in fact be correct. It may be better for her children for their parents to go to work. Everything depends on the situation and people involved."
Why is it better? How? I understand the
content, but there is
no argument to address.
Does everything depend on the situation and people involved? That may be debatable (if you want to go down that road).
"The problem is not with critical thinking. You argue as though you don't believe that you can convince this person, but you still want to "win," so you resort to sophomoric sniping to try to wear her down, almost as if you want to punish her."
I would rather have her to convince me of her position, if she had an argument. I am not trying to convince her of anything other than she lacks evidence, citations, warrants, backings, etc. Intentions are not to punish, but instead educate by pointing out flaws in her reasoning or argument.
"Instead, why not try to see past the logic errors and fallacies and construct what you think the argument is, giving the person the common courtesy of the benefit of the doubt? People use colloquialisms and short-cut phrases because it's easier, and usually perfectly understandable. Try to avoid picking apart everyday speech like you would an essay in a logic class. If she commits a fallacy, try to fix it yourself, or ignore it if it's a minor point."
You are right, I was not charitable. However, I did mention in my critiques her claims and her evidence which is all she provided. Though short-cut phrases and everyday speech may be accepted in general environments, this kind of environment does not benefit from it. Everyday speech is an uneducated form of communication (we can debate this if you like). If you are trying to prove a point with an argument, you better be prepared to have the argument torn apart. If she has had the opportunity to receive higher education then she ought to know how to argue and reason. If not, people need more philosophy.
"Katie believes that her children will turn out just fine if both of their parents work for part of their lives. She believes that she will be happier if she continues to work than if she stays at home, and that her happiness will be a positive thing for her kids. At the very least, she seems to say that the choice depends on the situation. There does appear to be some support for her views."
Katie has a belief system, good. Now lets see if each belief is consistent with all the others. Belief systems need justification. Just because she believes something does not mean it is right, virtuous or the truth. There are also things called false beliefs. Link provided is questionable (can debate about that if you like).
"If you want to convince anyone, then saying "you're wrong on this list of points" won't get you very far (especially if other people treat her with common courtesy). You're going to need to paint a cogent picture of why your alternative is better. Be positive and winsome. Will she and her family be better off if she stays at home? Do studies show that she will be happier, too? Is there some common ground that you can argue from? Or does the only constructive argument you can make come from a belief that she doesn't share? In that case, just give some food for thought and move on."
I am not hear to convince, yet. My analysis was to point out what was not clear and what more was needed. Pointing those things out will get me very far. It will hopefully show her what her argument needs. Once she improves her argument, it will then presumably be clearer and easier to understand. I never claimed to have an alternative, merely critiquing her point on the issue. I never made an argument relying on my own beliefs.
"give some food for thought and move on" is another inquiry buster.
"I did no such thing."
Yes, you did.
"I argued nothing of the sort."
You did.
"Again, I argued nothing of the sort."
You did.
See how easy it is to just blatantly deny you did anything? Just as easy for me to say you did. Perhaps, if you want to be productive, you could clarify what you mean or do some elaboration on the matter.
