this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2024
861 points (100.0% liked)

US Authoritarianism

1198 readers
1 users here now

ChonkyOwlbear is an Illegitimate Usurper

There's other groups and you are welcome to add to them. USAuthoritarianism Linktree

See Also, my website. USAuthoritarianism.com be advised at time of writing it is basically just a donate link

Cool People: [email protected]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 19 points 5 months ago (4 children)

If it happened in some states, then it happened, nothing misleading about saying it happened.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I disagree entirely, I understood it as "no women were allowed to have a bank account anywhere in America before 1974" and I guarantee I'm not the only one. The very existence of this discussion thread proves your statement wrong.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago
[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I don't think that's the point in dispute, but that's not what the quoted post is saying.

"Women weren't allowed to open a bank account in the USA until 1974" implies that, until the year 1974, there were no women in the US who had opened bank accounts.

The more accurate statement would be "The right for women in the US to open bank accounts wasn't nationally established until 1974," which aligns with the reality wherein many American women were still able to open bank accounts before then.

[–] chillinit 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You're wrong about this. Therefore you're wrong about everything.

I also can make hasty generalizations.

Thanks for the teaching opportunity.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Are you a bot? You just keep repeating the same statement over and over.

[–] chillinit 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

When one logical fallacy doesn't succeed, the next is almost always ad-hominem.

Once again, thank you for the teaching opportunity.

I took a look at your post history. You'd benefit quite a bit from learning your logical fallacies. If you're committing them then you're being deceived by them. Specifically I recommend a Phil 100 logic course. Should be free.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Why are you spending so much time (and yet so little effort cx) to deny that women had fewer rights back then?

[–] chillinit 2 points 5 months ago

Why are you attempting strawman fallacy?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

That's not what was said, though. "Some banks weren't legally required to let women open bank accounts" is a very different statement than "women couldn't open bank accounts."