Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Recovering Agnostic]

i think the problem with the shermer, libertarian, sj thing is that its really hard to apply skepticism to politics.

it is, by its nature, ideologically driven.

its the whole problem i have here (with a+) in a nutshell. whether its tories, labour, tea-partiers, libertarians, feminists....etc

opposition can cry that the other side is woo too each other all night.

there are no right answers where politics is concerned.

But it is possible to favour evidence over rhetoric, isn't it? The Geek Manifesto is a pretty good argument for this - it's not trying to say that skeptics should support this cause or that cause, and in fact, Mark Henderson argues that it's better if the "skeptic vote" isn't too closely identified with any one party or ideology. But we can all agree (I hope) that evidence is good, and shouldn't be sidelined when it becomes politically inconvenient.

What we do with that evidence is another matter, but at least we should have evidence as a starting point, rather than political dogma and handwaving. Otherwise, what's the basis of the discussion? Evidence-free "I think X" "I think Y" arguments are what we should be worried about, not any particular conclusion. I'd tentatively suggest that anyone who's deeply invested in a particular political party or movement, especially as a matter of identity, isn't being skeptical about politics.

 

[Mr. Scott]

i think the problem with the shermer, libertarian, sj thing is that its really hard to apply skepticism to politics.

it is, by its nature, ideologically driven.

its the whole problem i have here (with a+) in a nutshell. whether its tories, labour, tea-partiers, libertarians, feminists....etc

opposition can cry that the other side is woo too each other all night.

there are no right answers where politics is concerned.

Yes, politics and religion and SJ are ideologically driven, not evidence driven. Consistency and rigidity are badges of honor.

Skepticism doesn't work that way. One must always be ready to change position due to evidence which. In ideological arena changing position is cause for embarrassment and loss of credibility.

E.g., when I confront libertarians with a request to name a society, past or present, that functions close to the libertarian ideal and look at how it's working out for them, I get the strangest responses. The evidence does not support the ideology. (please let's not get derailed by this. I discussed it in another thread a while ago.)

Politics and religion are about scamming people to serve your needs, not about being led by reality. They're about distorting reality to dupe people to serve your needs.

In the case of many Aplussers we observe, their need is emotional revenge.

 

[adamwho]

Here is a fun one: Tropes vs Science

It is an A+ argument that dimorphism (difference in male/female bodies size/strength) in humans is a social construct. Thread at /r/atheismplus

 

[Hillbert]

Here is a fun one: *snip*

It is an A+ argument that dimorphism (difference in male/female bodies size/strength) in humans is a social construct. Thread at /r/atheismplus

Is there a social justice equivalent word for "bro-science"?

That post is just such a hodgepodge of bad science and statistics I don't even know where to begin.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Here is a fun one: Tropes vs Science

It is an A+ argument that dimorphism (difference in male/female bodies size/strength) in humans is a social construct. Thread at /r/atheismplus

I think sexual dimorphism is cultural in all species. Who needs science when we have emotions to tell us what's fair?

We want the world to be fair, and that makes it so.

 

[Wildy]

Seems it was McEwan who pulled Myers up about a sexually suggestive picture he posted a while back which he later removed after criticism.

http://www.shakesville.com/2011/08/lady-atheists-reluctance-to-engage-with.html

Oh, that's the Michele Bachmann Hotdog Incident.

Yea, it's all getting to be routine now. An unsuspecting noob wanders in attracted by the atheist bait, says something non-hardcore, gets dogpled and ceepolk wields the ban battleax.

Supervictim, thechemgeek wades in with "yes me too" on almost every issue.

We do have this though

Classic aplus with all the thrills chills and spills. WATCH as aplussers deny misandry is a "thing" Go AGOG an an aplusser says hating men is OK cause, you know, patriarchy. CHEER an the ceepolk drives home the lance. OOOOO and AAAAAH as parting words of advice are delivered in eulogy.

Maybe it's time to recreate a simpleflower character. I hear the internet has some good long pig recopies.

Ischemgeek's "NSFW" story gives one of the least romantic descriptions of a sexual encounter short of reading Ikea Erotica.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

This type of dishonest framing is exactly what people really have a problem with the Aplussers

Nobody is claiming that it OK to have sex with somebody who doesn't want to, that isn't even the issue being raised.

The fact that you would even respond in such a way demonstrates an inherent disrespect for those you responded to... and it is this type of tone-deaf behavior that has destroyed the credibility of A+ from day one.

This.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Here is a fun one: Tropes vs Science

It is an A+ argument that dimorphism (difference in male/female bodies size/strength) in humans is a social construct. Thread at /r/atheismplus

 

[RandFan]

This type of dishonest framing is exactly what people really have a problem with the Aplussers

Nobody is claiming that it OK to have sex with somebody who doesn't want to, that isn't even the issue being raised.

The fact that you would even respond in such a way demonstrates an inherent disrespect for those you responded to... and it is this type of tone-deaf behavior that has destroyed the credibility of A+ from day one.

The most vocal critics of A+ I know are humanists who think rape abhorrent. Far worse than any property crime. Rape is up there with sexual assault on a child, kidnapping, killing and torture. It's about as bad a thing a human being can do to another human being.

And that's this kind of dishonest false dichotomy PZ and RW FTB and A+ folks sling around constantly. They often argue as if you are in disagreement with them you are a misogynist or somehow pro rape. I'm here to tell you that it's not true. It's pure BS.

Please don't that? No one will ban you or suspend you or send you to a reeducation camp but it's damn poor form. Please to focus on our arguments and not straw men that have absolutely nothing to do with the thread.

 

[Edx]

Here is a fun one: Tropes vs Science

It is an A+ argument that dimorphism (difference in male/female bodies size/strength) in humans is a social construct. Thread at /r/atheismplus

Wow I was surprised to find they actually were arguing women are biologically as tough as men are. Amazing.

Here's something I find interesting. Apparently the 22nd best man in the world at the hundred meter sprint still beats the number 1 woman in the world. If we didnt have separate womans sports women would be a rare sight even qualifying to participate. But Im sure Atheism+ things its only a matter of time!

 

[qwints]

When one partner is held accountable for not knowing the desires of the other, who is unwilling to express them, I have an issue with this.

I'm not talking about accountability - legal or otherwise. I'm saying don't have sex with someone who doesn't want to. It's wrong even if that person is unwilling to express their desires. This is what "yes means yes" is about.

 

[qwints]

Please don't that? No one will ban you or suspend you or send you to a reeducation camp but it's damn poor form. Please to focus on our arguments and not straw men that have absolutely nothing to do with the thread.

When someone says "If she doesn't say 'no,' it's his fault for not reading her mind and continuing." in a way that disparages the sentiment, I read that as saying that it's not wrong to have sex with someone who doesn't say no regardless of whether they want to or not.

 

[squealpiggy]

I'm not talking about accountability - legal or otherwise. I'm saying don't have sex with someone who doesn't want to. It's wrong even if that person is unwilling to express their desires. This is what "yes means yes" is about.

Consent is not the same as desire. It's a normal thing to consent to something you would rather not do. I consent to get vaccinated. I don't want to do it but I recognise its value and consent to it.

 

[qwints]

Consent is not the same as desire. It's a normal thing to consent to something you would rather not do. I consent to get vaccinated. I don't want to do it but I recognise its value and consent to it.

Distinction noted. What does that have to do with not having sex with people who don't want to?

 

[squealpiggy]

Distinction noted. What does that have to do with not having sex with people who don't want to?

You can not want sex but consent to it. There's an entire industry built around this concept.

 

[RandFan]

When someone says "If she doesn't say 'no,' it's his fault for not reading her mind and continuing." in a way that disparages the sentiment, I read that as saying that it's not wrong to have sex with someone who doesn't say no regardless of whether they want to or not.

I've read my post and your response several times. I've no idea what you are talking about. I don't know what one thing has to do with another.

I tried to answer your post by ignoring my post, the one you responded to. I still have no idea what your point is. I'm sorry. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else. Wouldn't be the first time that a breakdown in communication was my fault. If that is the case then I'm truly sorry.

 

[Recovering Agnostic]

Wow I was surprised to find they actually were arguing women are biologically as tough as men are. Amazing.

Here's something I find interesting. Apparently the 22nd best man in the world at the hundred meter sprint still beats the number 1 woman in the world. If we didnt have separate womans sports women would be a rare sight even qualifying to participate. But Im sure Atheism+ things its only a matter of time!

Um, a lot more than that. The records only go so far down, but just last year, the top 207 men in the world and ties ran 100m in 10.31 seconds or faster. The fastest woman that year ran in 10.70, and even the women's world record, controversially set by Flo-Jo with doubts over the wind reading, is 10.49. That's a big gap to explain.

But I'm happy to examine whether male physiology falls on a bell curve with longer tails, resulting in both greater highs and greater lows than women, and I'm happy to discuss whether that performance difference at the very extremes should affect public policy (recruiting members of the armed forces and so on). Those are different questions, and it may be that women are on average as tough as men, due to less variation and a relatively small influence from the high-profile extremes.

To argue that the fastest woman could run as fast as the fastest man is an extraordinary claim which flies in the face of all the available evidence, but is that actually what's being claimed, or is it a bit more subtle than that?

 

[Brainache]

Would this be a good time to mention my friend's T-Shirt idea: "Men are from Mars. Women are Stupid" ? He hasn't actually had that one made yet, but he did get one made that says "Blind People **** Me" (the asterisks are replacing a word for excrement, which in this context means "annoy")

I don't think he would be welcome at A+.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Um, a lot more than that. The records only go so far down, but just last year, the top 207 men in the world and ties ran 100m in 10.31 seconds or faster. The fastest woman that year ran in 10.70, and even the women's world record, controversially set by Flo-Jo with doubts over the wind reading, is 10.49. That's a big gap to explain.

But I'm happy to examine whether male physiology falls on a bell curve with longer tails, resulting in both greater highs and greater lows than women, and I'm happy to discuss whether that performance difference at the very extremes should affect public policy (recruiting members of the armed forces and so on). Those are different questions, and it may be that women are on average as tough as men, due to less variation and a relatively small influence from the high-profile extremes.

To argue that the fastest woman could run as fast as the fastest man is an extraordinary claim which flies in the face of all the available evidence, but is that actually what's being claimed, or is it a bit more subtle than that?

These keyboard warriors need to act on their beliefs and stage mixed gender athletic events.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Anyone know offhand what the A+ stance on miscegenation is?

For that matter, are they for all intents and purposes homogeneous in their beliefs, politics, and ideology?