Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[kbonn]

I am not sure that was ever the intent. It seemed more of the "lets use 'skepticism' to show why the politics we already agreed to disagree with are wrong" thing.

My biggest problem with FtB/A+ is that I think that 95% of people who go there all agree about almost 100% of the issues brought up. However, many of us disagree strongly with the solutions that the FtB/A+ in-group propose, and therefore we are the enemy.

I don't completely disagree, but I think a lot of people have gone there with different ideas. I, personally, really really wanted it to work, like the Reason.com etc world is effective for libertarians. I wanted for there to be a leftie version.

Sorry, I meant the people who ended up in control of the forum felt that was it's purpose, not each individual who wanted to be a part.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Your request wasn't ignored. AA's last post in this thread contains the following at the end: "(Note to self, left off at post 4967) ". Your post was #4980, meaning that AA simply hasn't got to it yet.

So, no one here is willing to defend the notion that emotions are a "valuable intellectual tool?" Not even a with tiny linky-link?

There should be a lone cricket chirping sound we can add to a post.

Try this:

 

[Hokulele]

So, no one here is willing to defend the notion that emotions are a "valuable intellectual tool?" Not even a with tiny linky-link?

How on earth do you get "No one here is willing to defend the notion" from (paraphrase) "He hasn't gotten to your post, yet"?

This is an example of the worst type of dogpiling...

 

[squealpiggy]

So, no one here is willing to defend the notion that emotions are a "valuable intellectual tool?" Not even a with tiny linky-link?

There should be a lone cricket chirping sound we can add to a post.

Try this:

 

[Mr. Scott]

How on earth do you get "No one here is willing to defend the notion" from (paraphrase) "He hasn't gotten to your post, yet"?

This is an example of the worst type of dogpiling...

Maybe it's a fear he'd be dogpiled you are suggesting?

Can one dog dogpile? I'm alone in the ring, inviting any defender of "emotion as an intellectual tool" to dogpile me.

Being ignored, in fact, hurts my feelings, as does being accused of dogpiling, especially since no one has explicitly supported me on this. No one here, on PMs, or in any secret forum has come out on my side.

As I see it, Aplussers' defense of emotional judgement is the gaping sinkhole in their critical thinking.

Please, prove me wrong. I'd be happy to add emotion to my intellectual toolbox, which is currently missing that purportedly-valuable tool.

OK, OK, I will put a leash on my impatience. The ball's in his court.

 

[Daald]

I will support you Mr. Scott. I am staying out until the discussion narrows down to specific points before joining back in since others are saying what I would want to say.

 

[s_pepys]

i have to say ive noticed aa using lots of false analogies that dont make any reasonable sense and attempt to divert the debate in his favour.

wank and **** chips as we say in the noooorth.

lxxx

 

[The Greater Fool]

Ambien induced gibberish snipped

Thank you kind membership for ignoring my Ambien Induced post. Frankly, I couldn't even understand most of it. My appolgies.

 

[qwints]

So, no one here is willing to defend the notion that emotions are a "valuable intellectual tool?" Not even a with tiny linky-link?

Pathos^WP

 

[Myriad]

Emotion can be helpful in persuading others that you are right. However, it is, at best, not very useful for helping to be right in the first place.

Orwell's 1984 vividly depicts some effective uses of various emotions in public discourse. Hate in particular.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[sphenisc]

Emotions are a valuable intellectual tool because other people have emotions. They therefore have a predictive use in anticipating the responses of other people to emotional situations.

 

[qwints]

This has been one of my criticisms of A+ as it's manifested on the A+ forum: the glorification of emotion.

emotion is a "valuable intellectual tool" ... comes across as an oxymoron.

Isn't the defense of emotional argument a form of anti-intellectualism?

As I see it, Aplussers' defense of emotional judgement is the gaping sinkhole in their critical thinking.

You've got four distinct claims/questions here:

1) "Glorifying emotion" should be criticized.
2) "Emotional" and "intellectual" are inherently incompatible.
3) Defending emotional argument is anti-intellectual.
4) Defending emotional judgment is incompatible with critical thinking.

Is that a fair summary of your position? Responding to it will take some time and space, so I want to make sure I understand what you're saying before I begin.

 

[luchog]

As I see it, their defense of emotional judgement is the gaping sinkhole in Aplussers' critical thinking.

Please, prove me wrong. I'd be happy to add emotion to my intellectual toolbox, which is currently missing that purportedly-valuable tool.

OK, OK, I will put a leash on my impatience. The ball's in his court.

I think the problem is that here, the debate over the value of emotional judgement vs. the value of rational judgement isn't even considered 101 material, but 099. Remedial. JREF is effectively founded on the outcome of that debate; and the typical response is going to be something along the lines of "Well, duh."

The vast majority of long-term posters here appear to firmly believe that rationalism and critical thinking are far superior to the emotionalism and subjective thinking espoused by the A+ crowd; because, well, that way religion lies.

The problem with Plussers isn't even the reliance on emotional subjectivity, it's the inherent hypocrisy in how they apply said subjectivity. The refusal to acknowledge that all of the evils they rail against only become evils when emotion triumphs over reason. When enough people let their fear, pain, and exaggerated self-image (positive or negative) rule, then they open themselves up to racism, sexism, cultural-centrism, and the "me first" attitude that shouts down anything that speaks of true equality.

This is why, though claiming to abhor racism and sexism, the extremist Social Justice Warriors are blinded to their own, more subtle and insidious, racism and sexism.

Not the gross, exclusionary racism of the KKK, National Front, or Zaitokukai, which seeks to eliminate the presence of any ethnicity but their own, and wall themselves off from the rest of the world; or the violently xenophobic racism of the southern African cultures, which believe that anything brought by the "white devils" is inherently evil and aimed at their destruction, and opposes vaccinations and treatments for diseases that are killing hundreds of thousands of people every year; but the subtle, self-important, patronizing racism that creates a culture of victimhood, teaches that minorities cannot survive in their culture without the handouts and favoritism that are the White Man's Burden, and treats any that do succeed, and oppose the rhetoric of the far-Left, as traitors to their race. Not the shouts of "Kike", "N*****", "Spic", or "Chink"; but the subtle sneers of "Oreo", "Coconut", "Banana", "Apple", and the general-purpose "Self-Hating".

Not the blatant, bullying sexism that treats women like objects to be owned, land to be conquered, or pets to be possessed and trained; nor the religious sexism which dictates the "proper place" of women, their subjugation to men, and the appropriateness of forceful actions to keep them in line with the precepts of their faith, treating them a little better than livestock to be bartered and sold; but the infantilizing sexism of Third-Wave Feminism that treats all women as fragile delicate flowers, perpetual victims little better than children, incapable of surviving the rigors of a difficult world. The sexism that attacks women who not only refuse to allow themselves to be irreparably traumatized by words; but also have the gall to survive real trauma and go on to thrive through their own efforts, instead of spending the rest of their lives crying on shoulders and hiding away from the world expecting to be mothered like a child who has just skinned its knee. The kind of sexism that denigrates successful, outspoken women who refuse to become members in the Cult of Victimhood, denies their strength and intelligence, devalues their fight against real oppression and institutionalized sexism, and derides them as "tools of the patriarchy", "deluded", and again, the ever-popular "self-hating".

Resort to emotionalism and subjectivity does not fight against oppression, it doesn't even necessarily change the target of oppression, it merely changes the source and nature of the oppression.

 

[Stout]

post

Damn.

I had to read it a few times

But

That was freakin' awesome.

 

[WillyWonka]

Damn.

I had to read it a few times

But

That was freakin' awesome.

Agree

 

[Empress]

I think the problem is that here, the debate over the value of emotional judgement vs. the value of rational judgement

*respectfully snipped*

Nommed

 

[RandFan]

I guess we'll either have to expunge the following words or place trigger warnings: wood, arouse, perky, excite, spank, penetrate, steamy, bone, pork, cowgirl, wet, throb, etc.

There goes my afternoon. Damn. Carlin ain't got nothing on you.

 

[RandFan]

Emotion can be helpful in persuading others that you are right. However, it is, at best, not very useful for helping to be right in the first place.

Orwell's 1984 vividly depicts some effective uses of various emotions in public discourse. Hate in particular.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Just beware the straw vulcan and spock fallacy. Emotions are crucial in our day to day decision making. That's not to say we should be ruled by emotions or forgo reason. Of course not. But we would be adrift in indecision if it were not for our emotions.

The Straw Vulcan, Julia Galef Skepticon 4

 

[qwints]

What are you even talking about luchog?

Which "southern African cultures" have those beliefs and how do you know?
Who is "creating a culture of victomhood" and what does that even mean?
How does "Third-Wave Feminism" "treat all women as fragile delicate flowers, perpetual victims little better than children?"

My basic reaction to your post is that calling out abuse and exploitation doesn't create either, but I'm not sure what you're even talking about.

 

[Myriad]

Just beware the straw vulcan and spock fallacy. Emotions are crucial in our day to day decision making. That's not to say we should be ruled by emotions or forgo reason. Of course not. But we would be adrift in indecision if it were not for our emotions.

The Straw Vulcan, Julia Galef Skepticon 4

I understand and I completely agree. Indeed, in this religion subforum I'm usually on the other side of the same dispute, arguing that skeptics and rationalists should pay more attention to the experiences of religion rather than only its narratives, when they ask questions like "why do people believe X?" (Experiences being a larger category that includes all emotions.)

Denying or disregarding experiences ("grace does not exist" or "grace is irrelevant if God does not exist") and regarding experiences as authoritative ("grace proves God exists" or "grace shows Jesus wants to save us from hell") lead to two equally extreme positions.

Currently, the social theories advanced by the Atheism+ forums tend toward the latter error, though with regard to social justice rather than religion. So, I try to show how it's wrong. If the recent prayer thread gets revived, in which some atheists were falling afoul of the former error, I'll be back to trying to show that's wrong too.

When you defend the middle ground, you need a light saber like Darth Maul's.

Respectfully,
Myriad