Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
After some discussion with other mods, I'm reopening the thread. Here are the terms.

Mr Samsa: what are you arguing FOR? What is the worldview that you want to advance? I've gone back over the thread, and for the life of me, I can't figure out what you are trying to advance as a basic concept. There has been much heat and little light.

So please, tell us what it is that you are arguing. Don't respond to other prior posts in laying this out, just briefly explain to us what problem it is that you have with the concept of ethics and values being something that skeptical thought and the scientific mindset can discover or reinterpret. What do you propose as a skeptical worldview of ethics?
Be brief; keep it to, say, ten sentences or less, as a basic outline. We can then restart discussion from there. Be clear on what it is you are arguing, so that we know what your position is.

And then, when people respond to your argument, listen to their responses. And if someone says "this is wrong" and gives reasons why, don't just gainsay what they say without presenting a counterargument.

Other people: We're going to start this argument fresh. Please do not bring in statements from prior posts on the thread to this new start. Just respond to what's said from this point forth.

Okay? Go.
Click to expand...

seems to me he is being told to change the point of his argument or go away!

accept that you are already wrong and argue from there. crazy!

lxxx
 
s_pepys said:
seems to me he is being told to change the point of his argument or go away!

accept that you are already wrong and argue from there. crazy!

lxxx
Click to expand...

I can answer it for him. He sees the problem of applying skepticism to ethics and values as being the problem of applying skepticism to anything which is subjective. You can't be objective about something which is inherently subjective. That's why we have different words for those things!

It's much easier to understand someone's point when you're not shouting "STOP OPPRESSING ME!" over the top of them.
 
squealpiggy said:
ETA I read to the end of the thread linked above. Monsieur Samsa has been told to make what he is arguing for clear and to not obfuscate. I know what he's arguing for exactly and at no point does he appear to be disguising his message. Am I that much more intelligent than the posters of A plus, or are they being deliberately obstinate because they feel like they're being challenged?
Click to expand...

Well it may be a little from column A and a little from column B. But personally I think that they are being deliberately obtuse, probably in an attempt to goad him into doing something that gives them a more "acceptable" reason to ban him.
 
Wildy said:
Well it may be a little from column A and a little from column B. But personally I think that they are being deliberately obtuse, probably in an attempt to goad him into doing something that gives them a more "acceptable" reason to ban him.
Click to expand...
Well they can't very well throw him in the river and see if he floats like a witch.
 
squealpiggy said:
I can answer it for him. He sees the problem of applying skepticism to ethics and values as being the problem of applying skepticism to anything which is subjective. You can't be objective about something which is inherently subjective. That's why we have different words for those things!
Click to expand...

Haven't we been over all this before with Marxism and Objectivism?
 
That thread is... amazing.

Mister Samsa: The four tools of Skeptics are science, logic, rationality, and ethics. Of these, only logic, rationality, and ethics can be practically applied to answer questions about values.

A+: Why do you hate science? Give an example of what you're talking about.

Mister Samsa: I don't hate science. Here's a hypothetical example that clearly illustrates my point.

A+: Hypothetical examples are stupid. Give a real-world example.

Mister Samsa: Here's a real-world example of a flawed (medical) value system that is supported by (some) science. But we can use logic, rationality, and ethics to reject this value system, even though science can be used to support it.

A+: You support bad value systems! And you hate science!

Mister Samsa: Not at all. I hate bad value systems. I like science. I also like logic, rationality, and ethics, which are skeptical tools that help me to reject bad value systems, even when science doesn't help me.

A+ Viziers: MISTER SAMSA, STOP BEING WRONG ALL THE TIME OR WE WILL BAN YOU. Also, start all over again, from the top. And since many of our members are idiots, this time use small words and simple sentences. OR WE WILL BAN YOU.
 
Last edited:
squealpiggy said:
This is a quote from my favourite and yours, Setar:

"No. What you should have done is used an example that doesn't treat disabilities as diseases, because disabilities aren't diseases."

No, but they are disabilities, some of which can be caused by disease.

This comment came about because Mr Samsa was making a point about how things like "health" or "happiness" are measurable but the value placed upon them is not. He used a video game analogy, basically saying that he likes games that are simple, quick and available on his browser. But some other people like video games that are complex and involved. So which is better, Farmville or WoW? The obvious point being that just as you can measure traits of video games but cannot objectively assign a value according to those traits, so you can measure traits of progressiveness such as health or happiness but cannot assign a value to those traits using empirical means.

The predictable response was to ridicule it for being about video games and demand a real life example. So he gave this example (I'm paraphrasing):

Sequestering and forcefully treating the deaf for their disability will lead to a healthier society. But living under such a society would result in a lower metric for happiness.

So he gets dogpiled for being ableist, despite him stating that such a fascistic society would make him unhappy.

And that led to the ridiculous comment that "disabilities are not diseases", something which is true but not for the reason that Setar thinks it is.

I don't know, you read about scientific advancements in neuro-robotics that allow a quadriplegic woman to use mechanical hands using her thoughts and give her true independence from her disability and while the rest of the world stands in awe of the truly great things that science and technology have achieved the A-Plus crowd will worry about the negative effect this will have on the quadriplegic community.

Also I wish they would pack it in with this "xe" and "hir" business. They're responding to somebody whose user name is Mister Samsa. I think it's probably OK to call him "he".

ETA I read to the end of the thread linked above. Monsieur Samsa has been told to make what he is arguing for clear and to not obfuscate. I know what he's arguing for exactly and at no point does he appear to be disguising his message. Am I that much more intelligent than the posters of A plus, or are they being deliberately obstinate because they feel like they're being challenged?
Click to expand...

I know.

Regarding your last sentence, it's probably a combo of both of those to a certain extent, but there's a third factor...the A+ KGB secret/private forum Opinion Consensus Makers and their bloodlust for a dogpile (regardless of whether or not it's actually justifiable) that's a major component of their bizarre behavior.

Fortunately, MrSamsa recognized it for what it was as soon as the Inner Party members started crawling out of the woodwork, so it didn't apparently mess with his head too badly.
 
Last edited:
As an addendum to my previous post, I think it's only a matter of time before Mister Samsa uses logic, rationality, and ethics to reject the A+ value system.

I think he'd be a welcome addition to this forum, should he find himself looking for a new home for his ideas.
 
RandFan said:
Excellent blog post. Have you seen Hitchens' talk on free speech? He makes the exact same points as you but provides additional examples.
Click to expand...

Wow, that talk was a work of art. I love that he directly and unflinchingly took on one of the hardest possible cases for free speech.

About halfway through, Hitch asks "To whom do you award the right to decide which speech is harmful?" That's a heavy burden that the A+ mods aim to lift from the backs of so-called freethinkers.
 
theprestige said:
As an addendum to my previous post, I think it's only a matter of time before Mister Samsa uses logic, rationality, and ethics to reject the A+ value system.

I think he'd be a welcome addition to this forum, should he find himself looking for a new home for his ideas.
Click to expand...

A+ doesn't have an actual value system. All it has is a social hierarchy mostly worked out in various invisible backchannels.

I first encountered this phenomenon when my oldest kid (now almost 10 years old) was a newborn and I needed breastfeeding advice. I fell in with a group (both online and IRL) of so-called "lactivists" who would just shame, gossip about, harass, and verbally and emotionally abuse bottle feeding mothers under the banner of just "really caring about the health and happiness of babies!"

Woman not breastfeeding because she was on meds incompatible with nursing? IF YOU ARE UNWILLING OR UNABLE TO PROPERLY MOTHER, YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE HAD A BABY!

Wanting to switch to formula because you were sexually abused? IF YOU ARE UNWILLING OR UNABLE TO PROPERLY MOTHER, YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE HAD A BABY!

It became pretty obvious pretty quickly that these people didn't actually give a **** about the "health and happiness of babies." That was just a cover for being an a****** and demonstrating to others in the groups how "honest" and "unwilling to sugarcoat the truth" (and thus get high fives, back pats, cheers, and progress up the social ladder) they were.

I see the exact same thing at A+. They don't give two ****s about social justice. It's really just some toxic social game.


eta:
Come to think of it, I actually first encountered this in Jr High youthgroup prayer circle, where "prayer requests" were primarily used to gossip about the non-attendants in the name of "asking God to help them with their temptations." Heh.
 
Last edited:
Great breakdown Prestige. Really helps to sort out the word salad and cut right to the chase on that thread. Worth considering the points made by mood2 and even qmartindale, the only A+ insider who has posted itt. Note how cleverly the points he made on p. 1 and 2 were brushed over. :)
 
d4m10n said:
Wow, that talk was a work of art. I love that he directly and unflinchingly took on one of the hardest possible cases for free speech.

About halfway through, Hitch asks "To whom do you award the right to decide which speech is harmful?" That's a heavy burden that the A+ mods aim to lift from the backs of so-called freethinkers.
Click to expand...
I agree it is a work of art. I usually introduce it as Hitchens' Magnum Opus.

It's not just the right of the person being silenced to be heard, it's the right of everyone to hear it. When you silence someone you make yourself a slave to your own action.
Click to expand...
 
Would you folks be ameniable to changing the name of this thread to Atheism Plus and Free Thought Blogs (FTB)? There seems to be some degree of overlap and hence a degree of confusion. Or should we start a new thread? In any event, here is the PZ Myers Noel Plum kerfuffle.

In this video Noel Asks the Professor a question (only 2.5 mins long):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goA5KK...

PZ Myers blog response:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngul...

Noel's follow up to Myers' question.
http://noelplum99.blogspot.co.uk/2013...

Also, here is a screen capture of a comments by Myers and Natalie Reed regarding her leaving FTB. There seems to be a bit of confusion on the part of Myers.
http://i.imgur.com/d4Sqlzj.png
 
Can someone give me the cliffnotes on how PZ got skeptifamous in the first place?
 
d4m10n said:
Wow, that talk was a work of art. I love that he directly and unflinchingly took on one of the hardest possible cases for free speech.

About halfway through, Hitch asks "To whom do you award the right to decide which speech is harmful?" That's a heavy burden that the A+ mods aim to lift from the backs of so-called freethinkers.
Click to expand...

Hope I'm not stating the obvious, but Free Speech has always been for me at the foundation of Social Justice, and their hateful use of "freeze peach" to refer to it makes it obvious "social justice" is a fake posture. You can only speak freely there if you agree with the power elite, and FSM help you if you are accused of a thought crime.
 
kellyb said:
Can someone give me the cliffnotes on how PZ got skeptifamous in the first place?
Click to expand...

His blog, which used to be focused on Evolution (his field), then by extension on attacking/ ridiculing/ disproving creationists then on attacking religion in general (his stunt with desecrating some communion wafers then destroying a Quran got him some further attention).
His blog (long before the move to FTB) built up a large, loyal and quite rabbid fan-base.
 
RandFan said:
Would you folks be ameniable to changing the name of this thread to Atheism Plus and Free Thought Blogs (FTB)?
Click to expand...

Make sense to me, I don't think you can make sense of A+ without knowing from whence it arose and how it was initially promoted and populated.

Wish there was a handy catchall term for everyone who aims to subjugate the skeptical movement to the authoritarian callout culture endemic to brave keyboard warriors for great social justice. How about Atheists Against Social Injustice, or AtheistASI (rhymes with 'Stasi') for the sake of meaningful brevity?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom