Continued: (Ed) Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

surreptitious57 said:
Skeptic Ginger : thank you for providing that link to Gurdurs blog. There is much more to all this than one simple comment by Rebecca. I suspect even if a digital record of it remains that over time every one shall merely reference their own take on the issue without being specifically concerned for the actual facts. Now at least Gurdur tries to provide as comprehensive a back ground as possible to what happened. He has his own opinions of course but one can still make up their own mind as a consequence of providing an archive I actually wish some one would write a book on the whole episode and all its ramifications so as to provide the absolute definitive article upon the entire thing. It would have to be done by some one however who is entirely neutral with no obvious bias one way the other. Or failing that some one as neutral as it is possible to be. One of the sad things is how it has been a major issue within some online sceptical and atheist cyber communities like here. Since scepticism and atheism and feminism are supposed to be mutually compatible

One of the things that this issue brings up is the notion of sides. And I find that rather interesting because it is actually a spectrum full of shades of grey rather than twin absolutes of black and white. Now I know of no one individually or collectively that has a monopoly on wisdom. And so any idea that one must automatically identify with one side over another all of the time is therefore some what simplistic and impractical. I myself take from all and so do not identify with any one so called side from an exclusive perspective. I am far more interested in ideas than individuals. Once you start employing ad hominem you have lost an ability to reasonSo am as neutral as it is possible to be with regard to Rebecca and indeed any one at all come to that matter whilst allowing for the fact that I am merely human. I do not have strong opinions one way or the other other than agreeing with her about the fundamentals. Which is a total no brainer. This should be the natural default position for any one genuinely interested in the issue. Indeed any issue for that matter regardless of what it is
Click to expand...
You make a great case for a book. Dang, if I wasn't already halfway through the sci-fi duology I'm writing...

It's not that elevatorgate would provide enough material for a book, but going back to the original plunge into the chasm, the social media side, the changing personalities overnight, the scandals of Shermer and Ben Radford, there is so much material one could find some social themes that might make it interesting.

It's mostly all gossip and a lot of petty stuff though. A Peyton Place book maybe? :p

As for all the details that are fading from memory as people tell the story from their own confirmation bias platforms, if you go back to the beginning of this thread, it's all there.
 
Last edited:
The amount that has been written about it and related matters on this forum
alone would fill a book so there is most definitely plenty of material. Although
one must differentiate between quantity and quality. But even so. Remember
that over four years later this is still being discussed. So its relevance can not
be denied. What is also interesting is how everybody from radical feminists to
blatant misogynists have an opinion on it which makes it somewhat universal
in appeal. As for me I tend to avoid fixed opinions upon any thing as much as
possible nowadays. Though having said that am actually incredibly interested
in how human beings react to issues like it. As it is a commentary upon social
psychology. And I would love it for two different versions of the book to come
out one pro and one anti feminist. Just to see what if anything they agreed on
 
d4m10n said:
I was comparing two conspiracy theories. In yours, a woman who calls herself Skepchick and someone else who calls himself Rorschach concocted a story about a man who left a certain bar at 4am to make a certain proposal to a certain woman.

In the other one, George Bush something something inside job.
Click to expand...
You think that claiming to have been asked for coffee is a conspiracy theory if it never happened? I think it more likely to be humble-bragging: 'I wish guys would stop hitting on me so much.' Then again, I don't find Watson to be the glamorous genius that you do.

Eta: Also, we have video, pictorial, and eye-witness testimony from many sources about the world trade center. Elevator guy does not appear in any pictures from the bar, nor did anyone else see him.

Eta the 2nd: Did you actually read your link? The comment you linked to made absolutely no claim to have ever seen EG, or that EG exists outside of Watson's story. The commenter claims EG never approached Watson at the bar, and that is it.
 
Last edited:
cornsail said:
That I am aware of. "Don't approach a woman under specific scenario X" is a far far less extreme claim than "never approach a female you are interested in".
Click to expand...

And women who think it is an ok situation to be approached in don't matter why?

That is the problem, this is not a situation that has a broad basis of support for being an unacceptable behavior.

If a persons reactions where all that mattered then this would be an argument that supports the validity of the gay panic and trans panic defenses. Those are their emotional responses and you can't change that with logical arguments.
 
ponderingturtle said:
And women who think it is an ok situation to be approached in don't matter why?
Click to expand...

The Warriors object when you say something like "Women like to shop". They will remind you that women are not a homogenous block and you can't speak for all women.

Then they proceed to lecture us that "women don't like being approached on an elevator".

Odd, that.
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
And women who think it is an ok situation to be approached in don't matter why?
Click to expand...

I'm struggling to see how you possibly could have got "women who think it is an ok situation to be approached in don't matter" from

"Don't approach a woman under specific scenario X" is a far far less extreme claim than "never approach a female you are interested in".​
 
cornsail said:
I'm struggling to see how you possibly could have got "women who think it is an ok situation to be approached in don't matter" from

"Don't approach a woman under specific scenario X" is a far far less extreme claim than "never approach a female you are interested in".​
Click to expand...

But any approach can result in those kinds of emotions, so how do you know that they won't happen before you do it? If the issue is the emotions engendered that is a different argument from saying that a specific situation is unacceptable. OF course if the argument that a specific situation is unacceptable then the people arguing that it is acceptable need to be given a hearing and not simply dismissed as rape supporters.

And as we can see the based way to engage with them is call them out by name and ridicule them in a situation that they can not answer back. That is totally OK no matter what emotional response you generate.
 
ponderingturtle said:
But any approach can result in those kinds of emotions, so how do you know that they won't happen before you do it? If the issue is the emotions engendered that is a different argument from saying that a specific situation is unacceptable. OF course if the argument that a specific situation is unacceptable then the people arguing that it is acceptable need to be given a hearing and not simply dismissed as rape supporters.

And as we can see the based way to engage with them is call them out by name and ridicule them in a situation that they can not answer back. That is totally OK no matter what emotional response you generate.
Click to expand...

:confused:

Once again, you seem to be responding as if I said something completely different from what I actually said.
 
cornsail said:
:confused:

Once again, you seem to be responding as if I said something completely different from what I actually said.
Click to expand...

It becomes a rather strange way to make a statement if all it means is not to do that with her. She intended it to be a broader prohibition, and was always taken as such.
 
cornsail said:
:confused:

Once again, you seem to be responding as if I said something completely different from what I actually said.
Click to expand...
And you'll remain confused until you stop ignoring what's being said and replacing it with your version.

"Don't approach a woman under specific scenario X"

Who defines scenario X?
Who determines which specific scenarios are X?

I don't want RW deciding under what circumstances men can approach me. Who gave her that authority? I sure didn't.

Ergo you are saying my opinion and women like me don't matter.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
And you'll remain confused until you stop ignoring what's being said and replacing it with your version.

"Don't approach a woman under specific scenario X"

Who defines scenario X?
Who determines which specific scenarios are X?

I don't want RW deciding under what circumstances men can approach me. Who gave her that authority? I sure didn't.

Ergo you are saying my opinion and women like me don't matter.
Click to expand...

Of course you don't, as a non blog having person feminism 101 indicates that your opinion is less valid that a blog having outspoken feminist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom