Additionally, the argument is that
Deut 22:5 prohibits women from wearing things that "pertain to a man", pants are described in the Bible as only being worn by men, thus pants are Biblically something that "pertains to a man".
It is a very simple and straightforward argument. In fact, it is a simple syllogism:
No women can wear men's clothing.
Pants are men's clothing.
Therefore, women cannot wear pants.
No A is B.
C is B.
Therefore, no A is C.
A is "women can wear".
B is "men's clothing".
C is "pants".
Therefore, "no women can wear pants."
In order to refute the argument, it would have to be shown that either one or both of the premises are wrong, or that the conclusion does not follow from the premises if the premises are in fact true.
So far, A cannot be refuted, because it is a plain statement from Scripture.
B has not been refuted because only men in the bible wore pants and no women in the Bible are seen to be wearing pants.
The conclusion cannot be refuted because it follows necessarily from the two premises.
For example:
No cats are dogs.
Chihuahuas are dogs.
Therefore, no cats are chihuahuas.
Given the two premises, it is impossible for the conclusion to be otherwise. If no cats are dogs, and if chihuahuas are dogs, then it necessarily follows that no cat is a chihuahua. EVERY syllogism with this form: No A is B, C is B, therefore no A is C, must necessarily be correct and valid.
Corrections to the syllogistic diagramming appreciated.
Threaded Mode
