Reply #32: I'm not outraged at all.

[enlightenment]

I was pointing out that the person to whom you replied was guilty of the same flaw as the article - hyperbole. Obvious and intentional exaggeration. You were expressing the opinion that the poster's 'facts' would be ignored in favor of the 'rhetorical screed'. I was suggesting that people would be more likely to ignore the post because there didn't appear to be much 'fact' in evidence because of the initially exaggerated claim.

To say, first, that male horses are 'regularly' nominated - followed by stating that they are 'occasionally' nominated (which is closer to the truth) - and give evidence for the nomination of ONE horse is defeating ones own argument in order to make something sound better.

If there were three male horse nominated, why not just say 'three male horses have also been nominated to this list, so the argument that this insults female athletes is incorrect'?