Don't blame me if you are unfamiliar with formal logic. You're not even trying to defend the original claim that this is always true, only your amended one that it is 'generally' true.
Which is also false anyway. I find no evidence for the claims, but then again, I lack the ignorance of history that people who would say such things are blessed with.
They do disprove generalizations. If you say that:
Even one counter-example can prove this claim wrong.
https://i.imgur.com/uZGCS8W.jpg
The rule stands and you are a fool for taking the contrary position.
Don't blame me if you are unfamiliar with formal logic. You're not even trying to defend the original claim that this is always true, only your amended one that it is 'generally' true.
Which is also false anyway. I find no evidence for the claims, but then again, I lack the ignorance of history that people who would say such things are blessed with.
Sounds like you're a sore loser to me.
The rule: Don't let women take positions of leadership. The reasoning: It results in policy decisions based on female fear impulses.
Finding a woman who doesn't create such policies does not change that the reason for the rule is still valid.
Cause you failed to back up your claim?
And what is the evidence for that?
Well, you're right about that.