‘Slut-Shamed’ Victimhood’s Loose Logic

Men are mortal.
ScoMo is a man.
Therefore, ScoMo is mortal.

Is there anything wrong with the above argument?  A stickler for logical forms would insist that the first premise should be All men are mortal.  Fair enough.  But if you put the initial form of the argument to a large sample of Australian voters, how many would object?  A statement like men are mortal will generally be accepted as a class attribution.

Now try this one.

Men are rapists.
David Leyonhjelm is a man.
Therefore, David Leyonhjelm is a rapist.

How does that one hold up?  It depends whom you offer it to.  To my mind, if you’re talking to those who retain some grip on common sense they will become sticklers for form, and reject the argument.  While all can be implicitly added to men are mortal, the same cannot be done here.

On the other hand, there is an increasingly large group, almost exclusively university educated, who will accept the argument along these lines:  There are men who have…