Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
qwints said:
Fair enough. I can't speak for apostolate, and I would disagree with anyone advancing the possible justifications you've suggested as strongly as you would. Here's what I believe:

1) Emotion exists - we clearly agree here
2) Emotion matters
3) Emotions are valid
4) Emotion influences our thinking
5) Emotion ought to play a role in determining our values

I would, however, agree that emotions are irrelevant to the truth or falsity of some sorts of propositions. Despite this, and because of the other beliefs I've listed, I would say that emotion can be useful for some types of reasoning.
Click to expand...

Myriad said:
When people claim to oppose rights for homosexuals because the idea of male homosexual acts disgusts them, what role should that play in determining our values?

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...
Excellent example Myriad. That's the argument made by Johnathan Haidt in The Righteous Mind. We should be skeptical of our emotions.
 
Mr. Scott said:
I took the trouble to locate the origin of the "emotion=intellectual tool" in this thread.

I'm inferring the following chain of logic from supporters of this idea:

1) Women are more emotional than men.
2) Women are better than men.
3) Intellect is good.
Click to expand...

I don't think that women are more emotional. It just seems that way, because men are taught to suppress their emotions. (Or, at least, some emotions.) Just look at what happens when women cry vs. when men cry. If a women cries, she gets sympathy and pats on the back, but if a man does, everybody just gets uneasy and thinks that he's gone unhinged. A display of great anger, from a man, is more socially acceptable than a display of great sadness. With women, it's just the opposite.

A book I read several years ago gave the hypothesis that society suppresses different parts of the female and male psyche. (Sorry, can't remember the author or title.) Because of this suppression, men and women feel like they're "completed" by their partners. (I'm sure you've heard the phrase "You complete me!") This "completion" is merely the recognition of that part of themselves that's been suppressed, manifesting in the other person. A lot of people see this as beautiful and romantic. The author saw it as dysfunctional.
 
recursive prophet said:
I'm surprised it's taken this long, but knew they would start going after their own eventually. http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=73006#p73006

Meanwhile the post count and general activity is way down, and getting lower. Time to start working on the requiem for the A+ forum. I doubt if it'll still be there in another 6 months. Hope I'm wrong though. We may not find another lolcow this amusing for years to come. :(
Click to expand...

...wait, you're not allowed to use the word "females"?
 
Myriad said:
When people claim to oppose rights for homosexuals because the idea of male homosexual acts disgusts them, what role should that play in determining our values?

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

This is the best answer to the claim I think. FTB and A-Plus think that emotion is worthy because they only apply it to the things they are emotional about. Plenty of people are emotional in abhorrent ways. A man who loathes women is emotional about them. Does this add weight to his argument that women are inferior?

Squeegee Beckenheim said:
...wait, you're not allowed to use the word "females"?
Click to expand...

Apparently it's dehumanising. Yeah, who hates women now?
 
squealpiggy said:
This is the best answer to the claim I think. FTB and A-Plus think that emotion is worthy because they only apply it to the things they are emotional about. Plenty of people are emotional in abhorrent ways. A man who loathes women is emotional about them. Does this add weight to his argument that women are inferior?



Apparently it's dehumanising. Yeah, who hates women now?
Click to expand...


My understanding is that they're saying that (1) women mostly use emotion in problem solving or when dealing with SJ issues. So, (2) because women/women's opinions (and decision making based on emotion) re: SJ are undervalued in Western society it follows that (3) emotion is undervalued also.

Conclusion: emotion is a valuable decision making tool but is not being utilised because of the patriarchal nature of western society. Or, put another way, emotion needs to be used in SJ contexts because males are dicks.

Despite the fact that it first needs to be shown that emotion in decision making is superior to objective rationalism in decision making, if my understanding is correct, premise (1) need to be shown to be true before the argument can continue.

Does this seem right to anyone else? Am I being slow?
 
Krikkiter said:
My understanding is that they're saying that (1) women mostly use emotion in problem solving or when dealing with SJ issues. So, (2) because women/women's opinions (and decision making based on emotion) re: SJ are undervalued in Western society it follows that (3) emotion is undervalued also.

Conclusion: emotion is a valuable decision making tool but is not being utilised because of the patriarchal nature of western society. Or, put another way, emotion needs to be used in SJ contexts because males are dicks.

Despite the fact that it first needs to be shown that emotion in decision making is superior to objective rationalism in decision making, if my understanding is correct, premise (1) need to be shown to be true before the argument can continue.

Does this seem right to anyone else? Am I being slow?
Click to expand...

That dovetails with what I've been trying to say, so it does seem right to me, and you are not that much slower than me ;)

It's possible ApostateA may be feeling he misspoke or worded poorly his remark, "emotion is a valuable intellectual tool." I give him the benefit of the doubt there, but it looks like he's scurried away.

JREFers tend to be more rough on ideas than on people, but if you are wedded to an idea, this will be a rough place for you if your ideas deserve rough treatment.
 
Mr. Scott said:
That dovetails with what I've been trying to say, so it does seem right to me, and you are not that much slower than me ;)

It's possible ApostateA may be feeling he misspoke or worded poorly his remark, "emotion is a valuable intellectual tool." I give him the benefit of the doubt there, but it looks like he's scurried away.

JREFers tend to be more rough on ideas than on people, but if you are wedded to an idea, this will be a rough place for you if your ideas deserve rough treatment.
Click to expand...


I see. Thanks for pointing that out. I think I might not have read the conversation closely enough.

It does speak volumes though that ApostateA was willing to come and attempt to converse - I'd love to see, say, ceepolk here trying to do the same thing. Seems to me that ApostateA is somewhat of a moderate attempting to explain the ideas of A+ or maybe defend the ideas? Either way, his/her possible exit from the conversation may well be seen as evidence of the fact that crap ideas don't cut it under scrutiny.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
...wait, you're not allowed to use the word "females"?
Click to expand...

Not attempting to be hyperbolic, but, when I read things like this, I can't help but think...

When arguments are made that there's wrong speech and language must be changed, the 'privileged' inherently oppress, and folks use suffering and confessions as a method to improve group-standing...I find it hard not to draw parallels to the mentality of the Red Guard.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
...wait, you're not allowed to use the word "females"?
Click to expand...


The idea is that "female" should only be an adjective, and that nouning it is repressive because it's naming people for a characteristic. The same with "homosexual," so mea culpa for misusing that myself in my previous post. (I did so deliberately, to imitate the way people holding the opinion I was referring to usually express it. But, maybe that was a bad idea. I apologize.)

That claim seems to me to have sufficient merit to make it worth putting up with some resulting extra wordiness (e.g. "women and girls to the lifeboats" instead of "females to the lifeboats") on rare occasions. There's not much reason to be routinely referring to "females" in conversation or business communication, unless one is talking about zoology or agriculture.

It's a little more difficult with "homosexuals" because the main alternate word "gay" is currently in transition between referring exclusively to homosexual men and being inclusive of homosexual women; also, "gays" (and arguably "lesbians") is also a nouned adjective, so in many usages one would have to say "gay and lesbian people" instead, replacing one word with four.

Not everything said at Atheism+ or FTB is absurd. There's room for disagreement about this one but it makes sense.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Last edited:
Foolmewunz said:
http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4149

From the safe harbor. . They're onto us! :D


Oh, and wanna bet the secret forum is a-buzz with "keep an eye on that newb - not sure if she caught the cooties at the jref".
Click to expand...

Oh noes, the OP used a gendered insult in opening post. Intent is not magic! Splash damage! Mod Warning! Wait what? It was gendered against men? Nevermind, assume joke as intended and laugh.
 
Myriad said:
That claim seems to me to have sufficient merit to make it worth putting up with some resulting extra wordiness (e.g. "women and girls to the lifeboats" instead of "females to the lifeboats") on rare occasions.
Click to expand...

Oh, that could be a great Monty Python bit.

"Females to the lifeboats!"
"You can't say "females". It's belittling a person because of a gender role."
"Okay, ladies and girls to the lifeboats! Hurry!"
"Nope. Can't use "ladies" because that's judgmental and patriarchal. And "girls" is a dimunition. Are you saying you we're all like children to you?"
"Well, I'm a bit non-plussed. What should I use? The water is up to the Lido deck?"
"Well, the proper term...... glub... glub... glub..."



I think if the second half of the sentences is ".... to the lifeboats.", only an A+er would actually worry about how to parse the first part in accordance with this week's political correctness.
 
theprestige said:
And the "bitches be crazy" value of all women begins at unknown. But how is this a productive starting point for relationshops?
Click to expand...

The woman in the dark parking lot doesn't know that I'm not a rapist. I also don't know that she's not a mugger. She could have a gun or a knife, and use that to take my wallet...or even kill me. Yet, there is no "Schrodinger's Mugger" theory that is applied specifically to women.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Guys, be fair. We've loaded the results of pollls from various threads her on these forums. I'm not sure how easy it is to vote early/vote often on that one, but internet polls are a joke, anyway. Everyone knows how to get around the security on any public poll.

I'd lighten up on the hypocrisy accusations. There's enough that one can disagree with about A+ without manufacturing issues.
Click to expand...

I just think it's funny that they have no idea what "troll" means.

If only there were some readily-available repository of knowledge that you could use, to look up words on...
 
Myriad said:
The idea is that "female" should only be an adjective, and that nouning it is repressive because it's naming people for a characteristic.
Click to expand...

But so is "woman". In fact, it's naming people for the exact same characteristic.

Seems to me that that's something that should be heavily context-dependent.

There's not much reason to be routinely referring to "females" in conversation or business communication, unless one is talking about zoology or agriculture.
Click to expand...

I can't say that I've had much cause to use it myself, but that's because it's unusual terminology, not because it's oppressive to do so.

I can think of a context in which it's used quite often, though. When talking about the behaviour of groups, there will often be reference to the Alpha Male and the Alpha Female. Now, it's true that these terms are borrowed from those which describe animal behaviour but, then, we are animals and we do behave like social pack animals, so I see no reason why such terms shouldn't be applied to us.

It's a little more difficult with "homosexuals" because the main alternate word "gay" is currently in transition between referring exclusively to homosexual men and being inclusive of homosexual women; also, "gays" (and arguably "lesbians") is also a nouned adjective, so in many usages one would have to say "gay and lesbian people" instead, replacing one word with four.
Click to expand...

And, of course, "gay" is an insult in its own right nowadays, whereas "homosexual" isn't.
 
Myriad said:
When people claim to oppose rights for homosexuals because the idea of male homosexual acts disgusts them, what role should that play in determining our values?

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

Fair question and the Haidt reference below is quite appropriate.

Short answer: as something that should be considered when forming my own values, when discussing collective values and when talking to them about their values.

I see no reason to disbelieve someone's claim of visceral disgust. It exists. Their disgust affects and shapes their experience. It matters. In the real word cases I've seen, that disgust isn't feigned or is an reasonable response based on that person's experiences. It's valid. That disgust influences or even determines their beliefs about how they and society should react to people. And that emotional reaction ought to determine their morality.

That disgust is likely to convince them to adopt principles I strongly disagree with regarding how they treat gay people and what laws society should adopt. But arguing that they should disregard their emotions is a bad idea for two reasons, first they are likely able to simply couch their objections in "purely intellectual" terms. Second, I am unlikely to change someone's mind when I've taken their basic motivation out of the discussion.
 
qwints said:
Fair question and the Haidt reference below is quite appropriate.

Short answer: as something that should be considered when forming my own values, when discussing collective values and when talking to them about their values.

I see no reason to disbelieve someone's claim of visceral disgust. It exists. Their disgust affects and shapes their experience. It matters. In the real word cases I've seen, that disgust isn't feigned or is an reasonable response based on that person's experiences. It's valid. That disgust influences or even determines their beliefs about how they and society should react to people. And that emotional reaction ought to determine their morality.

That disgust is likely to convince them to adopt principles I strongly disagree with regarding how they treat gay people and what laws society should adopt. But arguing that they should disregard their emotions is a bad idea for two reasons, first they are likely able to simply couch their objections in "purely intellectual" terms. Second, I am unlikely to change someone's mind when I've taken their basic motivation out of the discussion.
Click to expand...

This is ********. No one said to "disregard their emotions", but simply limit where it applies. For example, Ceepolk can "be disgusted" by any argument(say about role of government) put forward by someone with whom she disagrees(say a libertarian), and doesn't have to be a part of that debate/discussion. But does that mean her disgust is viable reason to moderate the user in question?

Haidt's talks/papers/books all make great arguments for why the reactionary, emotional, and visceral reactions at A+ to even slight disagreement is extremely harmful and bad for everyone involved. You take someone who either 1) disagrees with a minor point, or a potential solution to an agreed problem, or 2) has different priorities than the majority of the group, but still agrees with the majority of viewpoints on the site; and then eventually, things come to a head and they are vilified and labeled "evil" or "racist" or "sexist" or a "bigot". Is there any suprise when people react negatively to this? Why they defend themselves? (Calling someone a Bigot is not attacking their argument, it is attacking the person, whether true or not). Then they are accused of "doubling down", and kicked out.

Why is the "outgroup" person's emotional response to being called a bigot/misogynist/racist not valid? It is totally understandable to react negatively to this.

To use a common A+ analogy. I step on your toes, be it accident or purposeful(irrelevant on A+, even though I personally disagree). Your response is to shout at me that I am stepping on your toes(totally understandable). Perhaps, I look down, I don't see your foot near mine, I don't see how I could possibly be on your foot in this case. I say so, possibly try to explain myself, or better understand the situation. Then either you or someone else also starts punching me on my arm saying "You are standing on his/her/my toes!!!1". My concern now shifts to myself being punched in the arm, rather than your toes, regardless as to if I've gotten off of them or if I've apologized or understood how I did so. Now, I am accused of making it "all about me" after several others have jumped in to punch me on the arm, and that I am derailing.

Is the fact that I stepped on your toes proper justification to you or others punching me in the arm? Is it not unreasonable for me to try to understand if I am actually on your toes, and how to better look out for toes in the future before apologizing? Is it not normal for anyone accused of something to first figure out if they did it(if they don't remember if they drank the last of the milk) or deny it outright(If I know I didn't eat your sandwich), or be very upset if I called names or insulted for something, especially if the person is using words in a way I am unfamiliar,(IE A+/FTB meaning of misogynist versus common understanding).

Can you also see how a productive solution is very unlikely in this scenario? How emotional responses, while real, lead to me being banned for stepping on your toes, versus any number of other people punching me in the arm? Why is it fine for someone to say "some white CIS-gendered dude" as a dismissive, but if(in a relative situaiton), I (or someone else) can't use "some asian trans lady" in a relevant situation. Both would be dismissing an author rather than their point based on some information about the group that the author belongs to.

I have no issue about someone background being brought up as to affecting their views, but when it is used as a dismissive or an insult, it should be reacted to the same way, regardless of which demographic the person belonged to. The less priveleged posters at A+ are not in danger of being silenced, The mods have set up a lot of ground rules. It is just obvious that the emotions of some are protected, while others are not.
 
qwints said:
That disgust is likely to convince them to adopt principles I strongly disagree with regarding how they treat gay people and what laws society should adopt. But arguing that they should disregard their emotions is a bad idea for two reasons, first they are likely able to simply couch their objections in "purely intellectual" terms. Second, I am unlikely to change someone's mind when I've taken their basic motivation out of the discussion.
Click to expand...
We should do as Haidt points out and challenge them on their disgust. So what if they are disgusted? I'm disgusted by flan, tapioca and raisin pudding (to name a few things). So much so that if I try to eat any of them I vomit. So what? What does my disgust have to do with public policy?

I like Haidt's approach. Challenge people. Ask them what their disgust has to do with anything? Laws, morality, ethics, justice, these are about harm. Harm to other people. If you are not being harmed or someone else isn't being harmed then your emotions simply don't figure into it. I'm sorry but they don't.

I realize that reason won't change everyone's mind. In fact it will fail most of the time. But that's no basis to forgo reason. When policy comes down to preventing harm by ignoring emotion or causing harm by acknowledging it then I say we put reducing harm at the top of our priorities.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom