Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Hillbert]

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?

The author of the post seems to be saying that an innate, on average, sporting performance difference between men and women is not a settled issue.

Which is ludicrous, and to be fair a fair few commentators (including someone on HRT, interestingly) didn't agree.

The idea of long tails in populations is an interesting one though. If part of the sporting ability (let's say strength) is determined by hormonal load then it may be the case that the human body has an innate maximum strength which can be reached through increased testosterone (for example).

Male bodies will be nearer this maximum strength on average, so increased positive variation in testosterone may not affect strength too much. But women have a lot more room to improve, so increased variation in testosterone may keep increasing strength for longer than it would in men.

Just idle speculation.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It certainly can't be said that there's no dimorphism at all in humans, even leaving aside the obvious in-and-out bits. While it's ceratinly not as pronounced as in some animals, there are qualities in which the genders are different, both on average and with the outliers.

For example, the 10 tallest people in verified history are men, with the 11th being a woman. Men are, on average, taller than women. Those are not sexist statements, and nor are they a societal construct. They're a statement of fact.

 

[AlBell]

It certainly can't be said that there's no dimorphism at all in humans, even leaving aside the obvious in-and-out bits. While it's ceratinly not as pronounced as in some animals, there are qualities in which the genders are different, both on average and with the outliers.

For example, the 10 tallest people in verified history are men, with the 11th being a woman. Men are, on average, taller than women. Those are not sexist statements, and nor are they a societal construct. They're a statement of fact.

To me the 'no dimorphism' stance implies that fire depts, police, and military should have the same requirements for all rather than having lower requirements for women.

 

[qwints]

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 thought "please don't that" was referring to the "dishonest framing" adamwho said I was doing. My response to you was explaining why I thought my response was not dishonest framing.

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?

No, but I'd be very surprised if anyone on there thought it was wrong to be with someone of a different race or culture. I certainly don't. Why do you ask?

There's a diversity of opinion on how much atheism matters, but I'd say everyone currently on there is an atheist. On politics, I would say no, though when we discussed that here earlier, some people seemed to think there was no meaningful difference between social democrats, socialists and greens. Ideology is probably similar - some people here might not see the differences that do exist as particularly significant.

 

[s_pepys]

I thought "please don't that" was referring to the "dishonest framing" adamwho said I was doing. My response to you was explaining why I thought my response was not dishonest framing.



No, but I'd be very surprised if anyone on there thought it was wrong to be with someone of a different race or culture. I certainly don't. Why do you ask?

There's a diversity of opinion on how much atheism matters, but I'd say everyone currently on there is an atheist. On politics, I would say no, though when we discussed that here earlier, some people seemed to think there was no meaningful difference between social democrats, socialists and greens. Ideology is probably similar - some people here might not see the differences that do exist as particularly significant.

who sais this?

what has it to do with owt?

why do your posts never address the actual point or questions being put to you?

 

[qwints]

This was the particular post I was thinking of when I wrote that:

There's only a wide spectrum of political positions because even a hair's-breadth deviation from the orthodoxy is treated as a radical departure. The difference between Leninists and Trotskyites only seems wide to Leninists and Trotskyites. To a Democratic Republican--or even a Democratic Socialist--the idea that Leninism-Trotskyism represents a wide political spectrum would be laughably absurd.

I don't know what owt means? I was saying that, while I perceive a variety of political opinions, Mr. Scott might feel that, "for all intents and purposes" such opinion are homogeneous.

I do my best, but this isn't a deposition and I can respond to what I choose to respond to. I will continue to ignore obviously rhetorical questions.

 

[s_pepys]

This was the particular post I was thinking of when I wrote that:



I don't know what owt means? I was saying that, while I perceive a variety of political opinions, Mr. Scott might feel that, "for all intents and purposes" such opinion are homogeneous.

I do my best, but this isn't a deposition and I can respond to what I choose to respond to. I will continue to ignore obviously rhetorical questions.

owt means nothing round these parts. sorry.

it seems to me the post youve linked to is talking about perceived differences from someone with a different political ideology. hes not stating that there are no differences between "greens, socialists"etc... as you said.

maybe the poster can clarify but you definately attempted, again, to misrepresent points being made by others.

all we can do is try to do our best.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

A lot.

First it can affect how people answer questions in these studies.

A woman who isn't interested in sex at the moment has sex with her partner. She didn't particularly want to but she also loves the guy and decides to have the sex he wants. Define willing.

That isn't rape. It also isn't amoral for a couple with discordant sexual desires for one partner to have sex when the other doesn't want to. It could simply be compromise.

And second, seeing this differently is one reason why we aren't all on the same page in our views (we as in the radical feminists on the FTB and people in my camp).

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

Not to mention marriages.

 

[s_pepys]

A lot.

First it can affect how people answer questions in these studies.

A woman who isn't interested in sex at the moment has sex with her partner. She didn't particularly want to but she also loves the guy and decides to have the sex he wants. Define willing.
That isn't rape. It also isn't amoral for a couple with discordant sexual desires for one partner to have sex when the other doesn't want to. It could simply be compromise.

or vice-versa of course.

re-link to a serious example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvxWdnu9iDE

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

To me the 'no dimorphism' stance implies that fire depts, police, and military should have the same requirements for all rather than having lower requirements for women.

What if the roles of said employees differs once hired?

I agree, firefighters all need the same skills. Women should pass the same tests.

But police and the military can use women in their forces for jobs better suited for women, such as in the Middle East where female soldiers are an asset when you have to interact with female Muslims.

And for police, having women to interview rape suspects can be an advantage.

 

[theprestige]

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?

Have you ever seen any subtlety of thought, claim, or argument at the A+ forums or A+ subreddit?

 

[RandFan]

I thought "please don't that" was referring to the "dishonest framing" adamwho said I was doing. My response to you was explaining why I thought my response was not dishonest framing.

Understdood.

When I said "don't do that" I was talking about the dichotomy that is so promulgated so much among many in the PZ RW camp. As if there are only misogynists and those on their side. Disagreement with PZ and/or RW on any particular point does not make one a mysoginist.

 

[adamwho]

Originally Posted by qwints View Post
I thought "please don't that" was referring to the "dishonest framing" adamwho said I was doing. My response to you was explaining why I thought my response was not dishonest framing.

Understood.

When I said "don't do that" I was talking about the dichotomy that is so promulgated so much among many in the PZ RW camp. As if there are only misogynists and those on their side. Disagreement with PZ and/or RW on any particular point does not make one a misogynist.

In fact, disagreement doesn't make a person a misogynist, hate of women makes one a misogynist. And even the label misogynist has a HUGE cultural component to it.

Is a Muslim man who thinks protecting his wife in public means that she must wear a burka a misogynist?

Is a feminist who believes women need special protections because of 'patriarchy' a misogynist?

Is a person who cites factual differences between men and women a misogynist?

Is a person who ignores factual differences between men and women a misogynist?

 

[qwints]

re-link to a serious example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvxWdnu9iDE

That's not a healthy relationship, and her actions are abusive and wrong.

Disagreement with PZ and/or RW on any particular point does not make one a mysoginist.

Agreed.

 

[zooterkin]

owt means nothing round these parts. sorry.

Do you get less than you bargained for when you go shopping in Yorkshire?


("Owt" is anything, "nowt" is nothing.)

 

[Krikkiter]

Agreed.

You may agree and kudos to you but I doubt that PZ, RW and the majority of A+/FTB/Skepchick do. Disagree with them and that's an automatic MRA/MISOGYNIST! claim - banhammer etc.

Just in case you missed it, I think that was the point being made. Any comments on that?

 

[recursive prophet]

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

Not to mention marriages.

Perfect analogy there SG. The oldest profession could be viewed as consent via oppression, but that's not a tenable argument for marriage. Well, at least not those of say the last 20 years. Before that certainly there were cases where the act of marriage itself and/or it's continuation was based on women's lack of equality and still is in much of the world.

My only child is a daughter, as I had desperately hoped. I'm actually quite feminist oriented. I mean, if it weren't for the overall wisdom of women, Mitt would be helping the House turn back the clock. Anyway, there is a lot of juicy irony afoot in my being banned at A+ when they knew so little about me. Perhaps one day I'll take the time to write it all down, but hope they will just fade away. We don't need division at this juncture.

@Qwints: First I want to say you are the A+ defender for whom I have the most respect. (though I admit it's a very short list) This is based on your willingness to present you pov to a very skeptical audience. Do try and avoid irrelevant comparisons, and when/if you have time some day, take a quick peek at my A+ posts going back to the first ones. Not real hard as I only had about 60. Then explain how you would justify my being banned for that 1 reply to ceepolk on the PM rules thread I started.

 

[s_pepys]

Do you get less than you bargained for when you go shopping in Yorkshire?


("Owt" is anything, "nowt" is nothing.)

oh bugger

 

[Humes fork]

I've seen Richard Carrier railing against the supposedly many sexist atheists and skeptics. I wonder, how common are they? Has anyone suggested that rape should be permitted on conferences?

This whole drama looks completely unnecessary to me. I've seen people on both sides who now refuse to read anything by someone on the other side, even if it has nothing to do with this issue.